Now comes Salem’s Lot. Written and directed by Gary Dauberman, it’s the first feature-film adaptation of the 1975 novel in which Stephen King set himself the thought experiment of transposing Bram Stoker’s Dracula to contemporary New England. The book has been adapted twice before, in 1979 and 2004, but each time as a TV miniseries.

Of these precursors, the more interesting is the first, directed by Tobe Hooper. Made five years after The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, it signified Hooper’s move towards the mainstream, while retaining some gory scenes and choppy editing reminiscent of his old grindhouse aesthetic.

The new Salem’s Lot begins with a series of maps that trace how the master vampire, concealed in a chest, has reached Maine. The film’s own passage, stalled for years by the calculations of marketers and schedulers, has been equally arduous. It arrives now rather belatedly and without blockbuster flourish. While UK King fans can enjoy it on the big screen, it is consumable in most other locations only via the streaming service Max.

Literary and film scholar Robert Stam offers a profusion of terms to describe the work undertaken by screen adaptations. They may, for example, “rewrite”, “transmute” or even “critique” their source-texts. Indicating a gentler kind of process, however, Stam also allows that an adaptation can offer an “incarnation” or “performance” of the material it is adapting. Performing Salem’s Lot in this sense, responding in audio-visual form to King’s prompts and refusing major reinventions, appears to be Dauberman’s goal.

King is a successor not only to Stoker and other horror writers such as H. P. Lovecraft, but to the late-19th century “local colorists” in New England, who attentively documented the sights and sounds of their region. On the page, Salem’s Lot is visually abundant. The new adaptation attempts to be similarly conscientious.

Dauberman takes care in matters of colour and lighting. A church’s doors, shut against the vampiric menace, glow a vivid red. Two boys walk through a wood silhouetted at sunset, their bodies ominously already lacking substance against a sky that is turning from pink to black. There are other visual pleasures, too, representing a shift away from Hooper’s version, where the shots are rougher-edged and decidedly non-pictorial.

The cast of this Salem’s Lot is likeable and struggles gamely, in the face of regular jump scares, to solicit audience engagement. Unlike Hammer’s Dracula adaptations, say, in which the monster has all the charisma, this is something of a democratic vampire film and devolves interest to members of the opposing force.

A pleasing modification is also made to the overbearing whiteness of King’s narrative world, with two of the pluckiest vampire hunters reimagined as African American.

Continues…

For the full article by Dr Andrew Dix visit the Conversation.