My good friend Brian, AKA Apparition (who writes a damn good blog himself as part of the horror bloggers coalition, check it out!) inspired me with his recent post to revisit Tobe Hooper's seminal television adaptation of Stephen King's Salem's Lot. Unlike Brian, I was only 2 when this aired in 1979 and was unable to watch it when it was first rolled out. I'm almost glad I missed it cause I guarantee you I would have filled my Wranglers if I had.
I've never been that much of a vampire enthusiast. I appreciate Browning's Dracula primarily for the magnetic performance of the great Bela Lugosi, but without that inimitable Hungarian thespians histrionics, it would be a rather dull and stagy affair. I didn't appreciate Langella's late 70's take on the count much beyond the hysterical giggling fit his coiffure gave my friend and I during one late night viewing that led us to refer to the film as Conair Dracula, a practice we continue to this day. I especially dislike the notion of a tragically sexy and romanticised bloodsucker, so soccer mom shower nozzle masturbation fodder such as Interview with a Vampire, True Blood and Twilight do nothing for me. I do love Murnau's Nosferatu though. Sure, it's slow and outdated, but the atmosphere is like a lead funeral shroud and Max Schreck's take on the Count is in my top 3 portrayals along with Gary Oldman and Salem Lot's Reggie Nalder. I love Coppola's Dracula more as an audacious, experimental art film with psychotic, wildly varied performances than as a Vampire film per se. I have decided after this most recent appraisal that Salem's Lot is without a doubt my favorite Vampire film of all time.
Credit must be given to King's source material. Above anything else, King has always been remarkably adept at populating his tales with an array of relatable characters who interweave to create a small town mosaic we can all find truth in. Tobe Hooper takes this great foundation and builds a veritable mansion of a film atop it. He makes us believe in this town, its people and their struggles. As the film develops at it's own languid pace, we have the opportunity to get to know these characters, come to care about them and to fully understand the complex relationships they all have with each other.
This has a lot to do with how well cast the film is, but even more in how Hooper takes this large assemblage of actors from disparate backgrounds (English stage training, 70's cop show, Eastwood westerns and Z-grade exploitation) with huge age gaps (8 to 80!) and pieces together a cohesive tapestry of performances. For me, this deft handling of his cast is no more apparent than in the cat and mouse exchange between Kenneth Macmillan's constable and James Mason's Straker at the antique store concerning a dark suit. The subtle, tension filled battle of wills playing out underneath the surface of their seemingly quiet conversation is some of the best acting I've seen in any movie, let alone a horror flick made for television! This is but one example in a 3 hour film filled to the brim with such well played interaction. David Soul brings a tough intelligence to his role and Geoff Lewis is a particular standout with his sad, wounded, lost loser just trying to get by as a nobody in a small town.
But I'll be damned if the whole thing doesn't eventually come down to Reggie Nalder's Barlow for me. THIS is how a vampire is supposed to be! Unearthly, disquieting, terrifying, revolting, plague ridden, ratlike and just generally monstrous beyond human comprehension. There's a scene toward the end when Barlow springs from his coffin so utterly horrific that I, at 32 years of age, jumped back from the TV and pulled my hands toward my chest cause I didn't want him to get me! Hooper's presentation of this piece of visual dynamite is the model of restraint and film making skill. We see Barlow only when we need to for exactly as long as we need to. He's barely in the film, but his Satanic presence permeates every frame as he wordlessly looms over the towns decay and eventual destruction. The archetype of a bloodsucking creature who manipulates the living, feeds off of them, infects them and lays waste to their ideals and innocence is perhaps the most deeply rooted fear we as humans have and Barlow in Salem's Lot is the penultimate expression of such an atavistic oppressor. The way I see it, Vampires don't date, they don't save you, they don't pine for lost love while playing the harpsichord and they sure as shit don't sparkle. They ingratiate themselves, they corrupt, they feed, they destroy, then they move on to the next town. Like the plague rats that laid waste to Bremen!
Other than pontificating on my opinions concerning Vampire cinema, I wanted to write this because I feel Tobe Hooper is a monumentally underrated director. His signature style is all over Salem's Lot. The crane shots, the ensemble cast, the way he develops and executes his scares, it's all here in spades. Please revisit this bona fide Vampire classic if you've grown tired of the shaved chest, pouty lipped, bodice wrinkler aesthetic bloodsucking cinema has adopted in the last decade. You won't be disappointed and you might just be reminded that Hooper is about a hell of a lot more than The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The man truly is a master of horror in my book and no matter what the bulk of folks in the genre circles I run say, The Mangler is entertaining and fun as hell!
I've never been that much of a vampire enthusiast. I appreciate Browning's Dracula primarily for the magnetic performance of the great Bela Lugosi, but without that inimitable Hungarian thespians histrionics, it would be a rather dull and stagy affair. I didn't appreciate Langella's late 70's take on the count much beyond the hysterical giggling fit his coiffure gave my friend and I during one late night viewing that led us to refer to the film as Conair Dracula, a practice we continue to this day. I especially dislike the notion of a tragically sexy and romanticised bloodsucker, so soccer mom shower nozzle masturbation fodder such as Interview with a Vampire, True Blood and Twilight do nothing for me. I do love Murnau's Nosferatu though. Sure, it's slow and outdated, but the atmosphere is like a lead funeral shroud and Max Schreck's take on the Count is in my top 3 portrayals along with Gary Oldman and Salem Lot's Reggie Nalder. I love Coppola's Dracula more as an audacious, experimental art film with psychotic, wildly varied performances than as a Vampire film per se. I have decided after this most recent appraisal that Salem's Lot is without a doubt my favorite Vampire film of all time.
Credit must be given to King's source material. Above anything else, King has always been remarkably adept at populating his tales with an array of relatable characters who interweave to create a small town mosaic we can all find truth in. Tobe Hooper takes this great foundation and builds a veritable mansion of a film atop it. He makes us believe in this town, its people and their struggles. As the film develops at it's own languid pace, we have the opportunity to get to know these characters, come to care about them and to fully understand the complex relationships they all have with each other.
This has a lot to do with how well cast the film is, but even more in how Hooper takes this large assemblage of actors from disparate backgrounds (English stage training, 70's cop show, Eastwood westerns and Z-grade exploitation) with huge age gaps (8 to 80!) and pieces together a cohesive tapestry of performances. For me, this deft handling of his cast is no more apparent than in the cat and mouse exchange between Kenneth Macmillan's constable and James Mason's Straker at the antique store concerning a dark suit. The subtle, tension filled battle of wills playing out underneath the surface of their seemingly quiet conversation is some of the best acting I've seen in any movie, let alone a horror flick made for television! This is but one example in a 3 hour film filled to the brim with such well played interaction. David Soul brings a tough intelligence to his role and Geoff Lewis is a particular standout with his sad, wounded, lost loser just trying to get by as a nobody in a small town.
But I'll be damned if the whole thing doesn't eventually come down to Reggie Nalder's Barlow for me. THIS is how a vampire is supposed to be! Unearthly, disquieting, terrifying, revolting, plague ridden, ratlike and just generally monstrous beyond human comprehension. There's a scene toward the end when Barlow springs from his coffin so utterly horrific that I, at 32 years of age, jumped back from the TV and pulled my hands toward my chest cause I didn't want him to get me! Hooper's presentation of this piece of visual dynamite is the model of restraint and film making skill. We see Barlow only when we need to for exactly as long as we need to. He's barely in the film, but his Satanic presence permeates every frame as he wordlessly looms over the towns decay and eventual destruction. The archetype of a bloodsucking creature who manipulates the living, feeds off of them, infects them and lays waste to their ideals and innocence is perhaps the most deeply rooted fear we as humans have and Barlow in Salem's Lot is the penultimate expression of such an atavistic oppressor. The way I see it, Vampires don't date, they don't save you, they don't pine for lost love while playing the harpsichord and they sure as shit don't sparkle. They ingratiate themselves, they corrupt, they feed, they destroy, then they move on to the next town. Like the plague rats that laid waste to Bremen!
Other than pontificating on my opinions concerning Vampire cinema, I wanted to write this because I feel Tobe Hooper is a monumentally underrated director. His signature style is all over Salem's Lot. The crane shots, the ensemble cast, the way he develops and executes his scares, it's all here in spades. Please revisit this bona fide Vampire classic if you've grown tired of the shaved chest, pouty lipped, bodice wrinkler aesthetic bloodsucking cinema has adopted in the last decade. You won't be disappointed and you might just be reminded that Hooper is about a hell of a lot more than The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The man truly is a master of horror in my book and no matter what the bulk of folks in the genre circles I run say, The Mangler is entertaining and fun as hell!
0 comments:
Post a Comment