Why You Liked … Salem’s Lot

5.7? Huh. This is why I don’t trust the Internet.

Back in 1975, Stephen King rocked out ‘Salem’s Lot. 1975 was an interesting time, not least of which because the world was learning to love bell-bottom flares again. More relevant to this conversation is that it was just one year after Carrie absolutely rampaged across the charts, putting King on the horror map.

1975 also had a kind of innocence. We hadn’t yet been traumatised by late-stage capitalism. We just enjoyed flared pants and excellent music. We also hadn’t seen the roughly billion horror books, TV shows, and movies the success of ‘Salem’s Lot would usher in.

Why is this important? Because not only were we surprised by how terrified the book made us feel, but we also witnessed something fresh. King broke new ground, steering clear of hokey Bram Stokes vibes and focusing on the small-town horror scene. It was surprising, innovative, and brilliant.

It’s now 2024: we’re seasoned veterans of horror, media, and have been deeply traumatised by remakes, reboots, and other cinematic fuckery. Perhaps it’s this that gave ‘Salem’s Lot such a lukewarm reception. It’s undeserved; inside this tight two-hour run you’ll find the beating heart of the original novel. It’s the Cliff Notes version, designed to go straight for adrenaline without asking you to wait.

Remake

While writing this script, I had the opportunity to check out why people didn’t like our 2024 entry. There seems to be three basic reasons:

1. It’s not the book. These hot takes focus on changes to the source material, or lack of character development or exploration.
2. It’s disappointing compared to the original book, or 1979 miniseries.
3. It is tonally off, either due to miscasting, feeling rushed, or crucially, not comparing well to other vampire movies.

While it’s tempting to simply say everyone’s wrong, we should give these criticisms the due they deserve. We need to get a bit more specific here.

Everyone’s Wrong

If you enjoyed the new ‘Salem’s Lot, you might feel displaced by the Internet commentary. I sure was! Let’s get into a few of these … experiential disconnects that a potentially vocal minority have. Why do I say vocal minority? Well, it’s currently sitting right behind Nobody Wants This as the second highest-streamed title.

While streaming popularity and quality are not universally overlapping Venn sets, there is some correlation. Borderlands jumped onto streaming and was a fuckfest that got comparatively few eyeballs despite its recent cinematic release. So, how do we know our ‘Salem’s Lot is actually good?

Fans of the 439-page book are going to be upset that the two-hour movie’s not as detailed as the source material. This is actually intended; the book still exists. It’s in print! You can buy it. If you want the book experience, there are retailers and libraries who can hook you up. Making a movie is more than just copy/pasting words onto film. You have actors who can do heavy lifting for exposition. Sets and details that can describe a vibe more efficiently than words. We don’t want a Xerox of the book; we want an interpretation. The tight pacing works for a modern audience without needing to throw in every small-down detail.

Which brings us to the exceptional casting. Lewis Pullman brings in big Glen Powell energy. Makenzie Leigh shows she’s one to watch, making us adore her character and fear for what we know in our hearts is coming. Bill Camp is perfect for our teacher-slash-mystic, but where things get exceptional is with Alfre Woodard as Dr. Cody and Jordan Preston Carter as Mark. Carter demonstrates an intensity totally absent from many youth actors, but it’s the sorcerer-levels of skill that Woodard brings that makes me salute the casting director. And this is also where a few people get butthurt, because Dr. Cody is actually a man in the book. Honestly, race, gender, and sexuality can be the least interesting aspects of a character. This movie really understands we want a fucking show, not an uplifting of King’s original character descriptions.

I think the final thing to talk about here is how ‘Salem’s Lot was one of the OG vampire stories. For sure, you’re going to find things that seem cliched if you watch the movie after having seen the intervening 49 years of content that King (in part) inspired. The movie skips the boring shit we don’t need, getting right to a guy-meets-girl story that turns into an everyone’s-a-vampire horror. It doesn’t overly rely on special effects, instead letting us feel the loss of a town through the characters who yet live.

It’s this essence of humanity the movie is so good at showing. It doesn’t waste time telling us everyone’s tiny story. Instead it shows us their collective experiences, writ large in the tragedy of a town lost to despair. In this, it reminds me most of 30 Days of Night. I think if you’re a fan of 30 Days, you will love this remake of ‘Salem’s Lot.

Cliches Reborn

Cliches are where ‘Salem’s Lot really sticks the landing. We expect a certain level of garlic, holy water, and crosses to enter any decent vampire narrative, but these aren’t just trope-checklist moments. 

Let’s start with: our friend, hypnotism! In most modern vampire stories, it’s usually some dead asshole seducing a beautiful woman. Salem’s Lot doesn’t pull its punches by keeping it that clean. Kids are hypnotised, and then led to their deaths, sometimes by other kids.

Crucifixes, usually vampire-slaying 101, are where the movie really shines. There’s a harrowing scene where a makeshift cross is put together in a morgue, which goes about as well as you might imagine. The raw anxiety of that moment, combined with the fall of one of our heroes, takes what could’ve been a tired vampire cliché and turns it into a high point of tension. The film later leans on the ideals of faith, showing us how priests are only a salvation if they’re also believers.

Even mirrors, a classic vampire trope, are used more strategically. We know the ol’ vampire-doesn’t-have-a-reflection gag, but ‘Salem’s Lot makes the mirror an important plot device. There’s a scene where Ben can’t see someone sneaking up on Susan because he’s made a tactical error in his mirror use. It’s not just about not seeing a dude; it’s about how missing that important beat has consequences, and it flips the whole mirror trope into something much more meaningful. It also makes us pine for the fall of our movie’s oracle, as we can see the weakening of the hero’s circle as their numbers dwindle.

Home Improvement

As good as the casting is, it’s not perfect. Nowhere is this clearer than with Straker and Barlow. ‘Salem’s Lot’s portrayal of Straker and Barlow leaves me wanting more; there’s too much pure evil in their portrayal for them to be ‘real’. While the familiar-and-vampire buddy system is a well-trod path, it felt like something was missing from this duo. 

It has been something like 35 years since I read the novel, so I can’t speak with authority on whether the movie holds true to King’s narrative on the pair. I’d suggest we’ve got a challenge with evil-as-caricature here. While the heroes get to show us both heroism and flaws through different lenses, this is just a one-size-fits all Evil T-Shirt.

I appreciate the irony in having just said how good the casting and characters were while pulling this criticism out of my ass, but bear with me. If we had a scene where Straker hosted a housewarming to get to know the neighbours, or Barlow showed the seductive nature of power to a select few, it might have been easier to accept them as the reason why this small town fell so far, so fast.

Without that, we know that when Straker or Barlow appear on screen, something evil’s going to happen. Their simplicity weakens the story beats that could have risen this movie to greatness. When the late great Heath Ledger appeared on-screen as the Joker, we knew bad things would happen, but he’s not a caricature of evil. He’s a vile insidiousness we can’t rightly imagine. It’s that kind of complexity that makes for a devil we can love. 

What it Gets Right

Simplicity is a double-edged sword, and while we can accept that the Evil Power Combo were a little flaccid, it’s this simplicity that brings real heart to Ben, Susan, Mark, Dr. Cody, and Matt. It also brings a purity to the portrayal of the town itself. We’ve all seen a thousand TV shows and movies about small towns. We don’t need that retold. Same deal with schools, students, teachers, doctors, and our romantic love interest.

The movie spends just the right amount of time introducing us to Ben and Susan, while also introducing them to each other. They’re a believable pairing; Ben’s from out of town, and Susan yearns to be where he came from. They’re both fun and funny, and we’re rewarded in our hope for them as their relationship blooms alongside the plot events.

So, What?

‘Salem’s Lot is a modern, streamlined vampire flick. It’s tonally accurate to King’s original story, bringing us back to the dying organism of American small towns. It makes us yearn for simpler times, even if we have to put on flares to get there. It’s worth watching, despite its flaws, especially if you are into pure, rarified stories that show you just the exact amount of things to hurry along the impending doom.

While it misses the haunting depth and complexity of the original book, it’s done an outstanding job of turning over 400 pages of prose into two tight hours on screen, with loveable characters made real by exceptional performances and slick writing. It’s the 30 Days of Night sequel I wish we’d got instead of the trash fire that was Dark Days. 

It’s poignant, making you yearn for a simpler time, even if that’s festooned with corpses.