Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!

[AndyDursin]

Another superb write-up Michael.

I read RISING SUN a long time ago when I was in high school. As memory serves the big problem with Kaufman's film is that it sanitized Crichton's commentary on Japanese culture -- it was basically a Politically Corrected rendition of the novel, taking out much of its bite. Beyond that, I found the film truly boring and remember laughing out loud, in theaters, when Snipes did his "kung fu" near the end. You make a great point about Snipes' casting adding an additional black/white layer that didn't need to be there -- in fact it obscured the principal point of Crichton's book (which it seems Kaufman or the studio didn't want to convey anyway).

Kaufman made several outstanding films -- THE RIGHT STUFF and THE WANDERERS at the top of the list for me -- but his later career output really tailed off. After RISING SUN he only helmed two features (and a TV movie), including an awful Ashley Judd disaster named TWISTED. He didn't seem like he was the right fit for RISING SUN, that's for sure.

[mkaroly]

Thanks Andy!

You hit the nail right on the head...Kaufman et. al. definitely sanitized the novel's commentary on US-Japanese relationships; the decision to turn away from the US-Japanese relationships within the context of business enabled them to change the ending to what it was which just ruined the pathos and outrage of the whole thing (IMO). I would wager that the reason why they made the change they did was to appeal to a larger audience who was more familiar with black/white racial relationships than they were with Japanese culture (and international business practices). Still...they didn't make the source material better...it was worse. I am really glad you laughed at Wesley Snipes' martial art moves...lol...I actually murmured "What the f***?" and rolled my eyes when that part rolled around.

Paul, I am a big fan of Takemitsu; I have more of his symphonic and classical music than I do his film scores. Many years ago the Columbus Symphony under the direction of Junichi Hirokami performed one of his pieces, Requiem for Strings. I was absolutely overjoyed to hear one of Takemitsu's pieces being performed locally...it was very moving for me.

[Paul MacLean]

Paul, I am a big fan of Takemitsu; I have more of his symphonic and classical music than I do his film scores. Many years ago the Columbus Symphony under the direction of Junichi Hirokami performed one of his pieces, Requiem for Strings. I was absolutely overjoyed to hear one of Takemitsu's pieces being performed locally...it was very moving for me.

Would love to have seen that!

If you're interested, someone uploaded Takemitsu's rejected score from Night on Earth to Youtube...

[Eric Paddon]

No Way To Treat A Lady by William Goldman

-In 1964, before he hit it big as a screenwriter, William Goldman got his first novel published (under a pseudonym). It was inspired by the Boston Strangler case but the grabber for him was "What if a copycat Strangler emerged and the original Strangler got jealous?"

-A series of grisly strangling murders are taking place in New York by a disturbed man who is a master of disguises and voices. For his first killing, he impersonates a priest, then later a gay man, and even a terrified woman to pull it off. And he starts calling up the investigating detective, Morris Brummell, to report the crimes and toy with him, and to also fuel his ego for publicity. Chapter asides show newspaper articles of how the Daily News covers it, but for the killer, it's a moment of gratification when the Times reports his killings in one small paragraph on page 73.

-Detective Brummell who lives at home with his Jewish mother from Hell who is always boasting about how much better her other son Franklin is as a successful doctor, tries to find solace in a budding romance with the Gentile Sarah Stone, who lived in the same building as the first victim but saw nothing. Then later the case gets thrown a left turn when a copycat Strangler emerges which angers the original Strangler since this second Strangler commits rape in his crimes (one of his victims, I kid you not, is named Andrea Mitchell!) and as the original Strangler keeps insisting, he is no pervert! This sets the stage for a grisly personal moment for Brummell and then a bizarre confrontation and climax between the two Stranglers with Brummell taking part that frankly doesn't read very well.

-The film version came out in early 1968 and made a major change which Goldman admitted he disapproved of. It did away completely with the element of the copycat Strangler and made it only about one Strangler (Rod Steiger) who as in the book is a master of disguise (because like in the book, we discover his mother was a stage actress and these killings are part of a hate mother obsession) who likes to call up Detective Brummell (George Segal) and taunt him. Brummell still has his shiksa girlfriend (Lee Remick, her character is renamed Kate Palmer) who like in the book has a scene where she turns on the charm to impress Brummell's mother (Eileen Heckart). The movie even recreates verbatim a hilarious scene from the novel where Brummell must put up with a well-dressed midget trying to confess to the crimes (Michael Dunn, in a part that was as tailor-made for him as Dr. Loveless!).

-The film does not give us one of its grislier moments that has a direct impact on Brummell. And because it dispenses with the two Strangler conceit (in the film, Brummell decides to drive the Strangler out into the open by planting *fake* stories of a copycat Strangler) that means they had to come up with a new climax which is more conventional in nature, but the problem is it's very poorly written and executed. So book and movie both suffer from the conceit of having an interesting premise that doesn't deliver a good ending. The book's ending wouldn't have been acceptable and the film's is poorly written and staged. So as a result the film is nowhere near as good as a "Wait Until Dark" or "Experiment In Terror."

-Remick as always is gorgeous and does a lot with a role that is at times thankless. Amusingly, the publicity pix for this film try to mislead in that they show Remick lying on her stomach in bed while wearing a backless dress she hadn't taken off which in the picture looks like a blanket! All to create an illusion of non-existent nudity.

[Eric Paddon]

Seven Days In May by Fletcher Knebel and Charles W. Bailey II

-The popular 1962 novel about a military coup attempt against the government by the charismatic General James Scott because of unpopular President Jordan Lyman's disarmament treaty with the USSR became a popular 1964 movie with Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas, Fredric March and Ava Gardner.

-The novel and the movie I first experience in my teen years when I devoured *any* novel/movie with a political setting, regardless of what the agenda might have been since at the time I was more interested in the setting and not thinking too much about the agenda. My reading/viewing became more discriminating to the point where I think it's been quite a few years since sat down to go through both of these with more objectivity.

-If "Advise And Consent" (the novel) represented a look at American politics and foreign policy of the late 1950s and 1960s with an underlying prescience, the same IMO can not be said of "Seven Days In May" which along with "Fail Safe", "Dr. Strangelove" and projects like "Billion Dollar Brain" and many an episode of an early 60s TV show reflects a strange paranoia of early 1960s liberalism regarding the fear, danger, threat of the "military industrial complex" combined with the rise to popularity of the early conservative movement. Barry Goldwater's "Conscience of A Conservative" had become a bestseller, but there was also a brief period of 15 minutes of fame for the John Birch Society and the fanatical Army General Edwin Walker, who was fired by JFK for trying to indoctrinate his troops politically and then became a public speaker (and as it turned out, Lee Harvey Oswald took a shot at him six months before the more fateful ones he took in Dallas). Hindsight has ultimately proved that Walker and the Birchers had as much staying power or long-term relevance as a Morton Downey, Jr. talk show. The very notion of a military plot to take over the government in 1960s America was a fear that wasn't based in any actual reality of the time.

-But if the idea of generals plotting to overthrow the government was off the mark, I have to admit in light of what we have seen happening today, the basic idea that *some* branch of the unelected government does have the capacity to tamper with democratic institutions and subvert the ability of elected officials to do what they have received a mandate from the people under the Constitution to do, does have relevance. I may not agree with the trappings of the Cold War era and the source/motives of what "Seven Days In May" is all about, but I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't deny the basic underlying point and principle that the story is about that has merit. We are a nation of laws. And if we are to survive as a nation, we must abide by them, and we can not, even for the sake of what we think is the higher purpose and the higher principle destroy what we are as a nation. I'd be a hypocrite not to recognize that point that the book and the film do make. There are moments when I can find myself noting that yes, President Lyman in both book and film (but especially in the film) comes off as a bit of an arrogant elitist with his Wilsonian belief in the self-righteousness behind his disarmament treaty and agreeing with some points made against him, but......the place to repudiate President Lyman is at the ballot box (one of the more effective lines unique to the film in the Scott-Lyman confrontation scene which is far more tense in film than novel) and not by tearing up the Constitution in a military coup (irony of ironies though; how many "progressives" today have spent the last two years saying there should be a military coup against Donald Trump?).

-One thing about the book that is truly quaint. It was written in 1962 and takes place a decade later in a 1974 where JFK served two terms, was followed by an unpopular one-term Republican who had to fight a Korea style war in Iran that left Iran divided and half-communist and paved the way for Jordan Lyman. These touches show how almost no one could could anticipate the America that was to come with the JFK assassination and all that followed. It's certainly a testament to how the early 1960s liberalism that gave us their paranoia in "Seven Days In May" etc. were oblivious to the more extreme voices from their Left that ultimately would devour them.

-The translation of book to film saw Rod Serling make some necessary compressions. In the book, Colonel Jiggs Casey, the aide of General Scott who discovers the plot, is a married man with two teenaged sons who at one point is forced to go see a former mistress, Eleanor Holbrook who is a friend of General Scott's mistress in order to get some dirt on Scott that can be used as a last resort. The film telescopes this by having Eleanor Holbrook (played by Ava Gardner who is starting to look terrible; the closeups of her are unflattering and her hairstyles don't help.) be Scott's mistress, and the bachelor Jiggs Casey tries to seduce her to get incriminating dirt (the novel treated this gathering of dirt as a necessary evil; the film, perhaps recognizing that it would tarnish the halo of President Lyman and his group, in the end makes sure that this is rejected as a means to bring down Scott). Casey is also a more better drawn character in that in the book he's very wishy-washy and devoid of true convictions on the issue behind Scott's action, i.e. the disarmament treaty. Serling fixes this by making Casey a true admirer of Scott and believer in the basic principle of disliking the treaty, but who is crushed to see the man he admired betray the Constitution.

-Serling and Frankenheimer also leave out another thing from the book that they may have recognized (if the authors didn't) made President Lyman look in theory just as bad as Scott. In the novel and film, one of Scott's co-conspirators is a fanatical right wing news commentator who in the book is going to give the broadcast that will "sell" the coup to the public. At one point in the book a good deal is made about how the President needs to call the head of the network the commentator works for to keep him from getting on the air. Serling and Frankenheimer I suspect recognized that the idea of a President having that kind of power isn't exactly a sign of virtuous regard for the Constitution. Whatever the case, the role of the commentator in the film is very minimal and frankly that character should have been cut entirely.

-But probably the most significant change from the book is this. At one point, the President learns the Soviets do intend to cheat on the treaty. The effectiveness of his argument against Scott is that Scott, if he seized power really would not respond to this development any differently than Lyman now plans to do. In the novel, Lyman is disheartened that Scott failed to recognize how the two of them could have worked together effectively for the good of the nation. In the film, this element is completely absent. And it sets up a confrontation scene that is more angry and less sorrowful with Lyman seeing Scott as a megalomaniac (and Lancaster, with perfect understatement does manage to pull that off. This allows Lancaster's Scott to be seen in still tragic terms, but someone you recognize as more dangerous). I had in the past been more critical of Serling and Frankenheimer for eliminating the whole element of the Soviets cheating and forcing Lyman to make a more powerful argument to Scott but it would admittedly have watered down the moment of two good actors (Lancaster and March) going at each other brilliantly. So I'm less hostile to that point than in the past.

I avoided revisiting "Seven Days In May" for too many years because I came to think that the experience would be more like having to go through some bad tasting medicine. I think maybe waiting to revisit it until now in light of current events, has helped me better appreciate both book and film. The book has a very readable narrative that isn't ponderous and no one can fault the execution of Serling and Frankenheimer in what they bring to the screen. Ironically, the two of them had collaborated in 1956 for the television adaptation of another Cold War novel involving a conspiratorial plot, Pat Frank's "Forbidden Area", only in this case that involves a Soviet plot to infiltrate the military by destroying America's nuclear deterrent and leave America open for invasion. And it's the military men led by Charlton Heston who expose it! So "Seven Days In May" ultimately for both men represented revisiting a similar theme from reverse that also showed the change in attitudes from 1956 to 1964.

[mkaroly]

I plan on watched BLADE RUNNER 2049 again some time this week and will comment on it below at some point. For now I think this is enough...

DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP? by Philip K. Dick (1968) – In the year 2021 bounty hunter Rick Deckard, his wife Iran, and their pet electric sheep live on an Earth that has been devastated by nuclear war. Most of Earth’s population has emigrated to Mars along with androids which were once used for military purposes; those humans that remain on Earth are undesirables, the elderly, and those who choose to remain. Deckard is asked by his boss (Harry Bryant) to pursue and “retire” several androids who have illegally returned to Earth, including Max Polokov, Luba Luft (an opera singer), Pris Stratton, and Roy and Irmgard Baty (Deckard gets the assignment because Dave Holden, the department’s lead bounty hunter, was shot by Polokov). His task will be very difficult though, for the fugitive androids are Nexus-6 types: very advanced and very intelligent. Deckard’s investigation begins at the Rosen Association (the manufacturer of the Nexus-6 androids) where he meets the mysterious Rachael Rosen, the niece of the company’s head Eldon Rosen. His journey eventually leads to an outlying apartment complex in which J.R. Isodore (a “chickenhead,” or MRDD human being) happens to be housing a few of the fugitive androids. As if his assignment was not dangerous enough, Deckard also experiences a moral/spiritual crisis in the midst of his hunting – he begins to feel empathy toward the androids and is unsure he can carry out his assignment.

I had to read the novel twice, though I did not study it. PKD’s story is somewhat complex and progressively reveals things, clearing up what was confusing earlier in the narrative. There are a few primary themes in the novel: solitude/aloneness/silence is a theme and a character. The Earth is in a shambles, and the people who have chosen to remain on the planet experience loneliness and hopelessness. People have “mood organs” which they use to dial specific moods that act on the brain to bring that specific mood about. Religion/spirituality plays a significant part in the story through “Mercerism” and empathy boxes; the shared spirituality of suffering which characterizes Mercerism is meant to unify humanity (Mercerism is in competition (as it were) with entertainer Buster Friendly and his gang on TV and radio). The theme of empathy is the most important theme in the book, for it is the one character trait that separates human beings from even the most advanced androids (the test developed to detect androids apart from human beings – the Voight-Kampff test – is based on empathetic response). Connected to empathy is the status symbol that comes with owning an animal – real animals are rare but the most desirable; owners of an electric animal feel a certain shame. Yet ownership of any animal is encouraged in order to help the owner empathize with other people better. In the end, taken all together, I feel like the story’s core focuses on two men’s journeys through the minefields of loneliness, empathy, and spirituality (Deckard and Isodore). Both men have existential crises of sorts out of which they both experience a kind of spiritual awakening (or perhaps a transcendent moment). That enables both of them, I think, to achieve a deeper humanity than others are able to achieve (including the androids, though they try). The book is very dark, humorless, and paints a sad picture. It is also chilling at times (Pris’s handling of the spider), but I found that with one exception there is very little tension in the book – the build–ups to the retirement of the androids is not very suspenseful, and I found the prose to be very klunky at times. The story has a few twists and sinister moments that I enjoyed, and to its credit I felt the story bookended itself well, but overall it is a dry read which did not move me much. I feel like the narrative could have had more heart, suspense, and detail.

BLADE RUNNER was Ridley Scott’s attempt to adapt PKD’s book into a movie. There are people who love the movie, some who are lukewarm to it, and some who dislike it. I fall into the first category, and I always characterize it as the knockout punch in Scott’s one–two science-fiction combination punch of ALIEN and BLADE RUNNER. Visually the film holds up beautifully; the atmosphere and environment on display in the film have influenced countless films afterward. Vangelis’ score is outstanding; the more I see the film, the more I enjoy the music and the more it moves me. It is clear that while Scott’s film liberally makes reference to the book and uses the arc of the book’s narrative in his film, BLADE RUNNER makes PKD’s story so much more moving and profound. The film jettisons some of the themes in the book and substitutes its own powerful themes: the value of life and the desire to prolong it, the search for meaning and longevity, the created seeking an audience with the creator, the fear of death and living in its shadow, and the finality/loss that comes with disease and death. To that end, several changes to the book are made in the film in order to tell the story Scott wanted to tell. For example:

-The nuclear war/Armageddon foundation from the book is gone in the film. Rather, it seems like the world is overpopulated (though at times one wonders where all the people are in the film).
-The animal thread of PKD’s story is absent from the movie (though the film ‘tips the cap’ to the book with an owl, a couple of ostriches, and a pony). This was a wise choice on Scott’s part.
-Some of the character names changed: Max Polokov is Leon, Luba Luft is Zhora, and J.D. Isordore is J.F. Sebastian (in the book Isodore is MRDD; in the movie Sebastian suffers from Methuselah Syndrome and is a genetic designer). The Rosen Association becomes the Tyrell Corporation; Eldon Rosen becomes Eldon Tyrell. I also think that the character of Gaff in the film is very loosely based on Phil Resch in the book.
-Some of the characters remained the same: Rick Deckard, Harry Bryant, Roy Baty, and Dave Holden are all imported from the book to the film. Deckard is married to Iran in the book (whereas in the 1982 American version of the film he says he is divorced), and Roy is single in the film (perhaps romantically attracted to Pris) but married to Irmgard in the book. In the book Holden is the top bounty hunter; in the film Deckard is the top Blade Runner.
-Mercerism, empathy boxes, and mood organs are all absent from the film. The film’s religious/spiritual focus I would argue centers on the created meeting its creator (very Frankensteinian). Also, the Replicants in the film have reached an emotional advancement the androids hope to achieve in the book (but ultimately cannot) . Thus the primary theme of empathy as found in the book is not there in the movie.
-Rachael’s role in the book is different than her role in the film, though in both she is of romantic interest to Deckard. She is a very sinister character in the book whereas she is a completely sympathetic character in the movie. The Replicants as a whole are sympathetic in the movie because of their motivation (to extend their lives); in the book, while I did feel a small amount of compassion for the androids at times, it just wasn’t there to any great extent.

I watched both the 1982 American release of BLADE RUNNER as well as The Final Cut of the film. The 1982 film with voiceover narration gave the film a noir feel; while there are things I liked about it I found the voiceover narration to be incredibly intrusive at the film’s most moving moment (the ‘Tears in the Rain’ speech as well as the silence afterward as Deckard processed what Baty had said). It really spoiled the mood (and Vangelis’ music had to be dialed down) and was a detriment to the 1982 version (in my opinion). I like The Final Cut for its cohesion and lack of voiceover narration; ever since the Director’s Cut came out in 1992 I have felt that the idea that Deckard could be a Replicant was interesting. However, after reading the book (which makes no suggestion that Deckard is an android), I have changed my mind. Having Deckard be a human being who falls in love with a Replicant is the more compelling storyline to me now. Since Replicants are basically “slaves” to human beings and treated as “skin jobs” (i.e. lower than low) in the movie, as a human being who transcends those prejudices Deckard is more heroic and/or is more deeply human than anyone around him. It is the more moving storyline. Having Deckard be a Replicant just doesn’t seem to fit with the story the film tells (though if it were the book’s story, then Deckard as an android would have achieved what Roy and his gang sought to achieve but could not – humanity). Maybe I am thinking too much about it, but I wish the Final Cut would have removed the unicorn sequence which suggests Deckard is a Replicant. Be that as it may, I continue to enjoy BLADE RUNNER and feel it significantly improves on the book’s narrative, for it has the heart the book does not.

[AndyDursin]

However, after reading the book (which makes no suggestion that Deckard is an android), I have changed my mind. Having Deckard be a human being who falls in love with a Replicant is the more compelling storyline to me now.

It's always how I've felt, which is why even with the narration, I stick to the theatrical cut.

The irony is that 2049 did a better job being ambiguous with the whole idea -- actually enabling you to read it either way -- whereas Scott's "revisions" to his 1982 film tilt only in one direction...one that carries far less emotional resonance.

[mkaroly]

BLADE RUNNER 2049 (2017) - A sequel to BLADE RUNNER was released in 2017 called BLADE RUNNER 2049 which brings closure to the story of Deckard and Rachael. Directed by Denis Villeneuve, the story follows a Nexus 9 replicant Blade Runner named K (Ryan Gosling) who discovers a secret that has the potential to bring about world chaos. While retiring an older model replicant, K discovers a buried box which holds the skeletal remains of Rachael. He further discovers that Rachael had conceived and given birth to a child by C-section before she died. His superior Lt. Joshi (Robin Wright) wants K to discover the identity of the child and eliminate it because of the threat this child could pose to humanity (replicants are second class citizens and mostly slaves). Niander Wallace, the manufacturer of replicants in Tyrell’s place who had saved the world from starvation when it fell into massive eco-system collapse, wants the child so that he can dissect and study it to discover its secrets for his own use. An underground Replicant Freedom Force wants to keep the identity of the child secret until the right time because for them the child represents salvific hope – through the child they will be able to free themselves from the shackles of bondage and enslavement. The film follows K’s journey of discovery which leads him to Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) and the discovery of the truth.

BR2049 does not use any material from the ANDROIDS book by PKD aside from names. When I originally saw this in the theater I was not all that pleased with it; I felt it was an unnecessary sequel to a movie that did not need a sequel. I was fascinated to discover that I enjoyed the movie more the second time around, especially after reading PKD’s book and watching BR again. It is not as good as BR by any stretch, but upon reflection I was probably too hard on it the first time I saw it. The visuals and atmosphere are very much in line with the Blade Runner universe. It is a beautiful film to watch. I embraced the story this time as well – the idea that Deckard (as a human being…not as a replicant) and Rachael (as a replicant) had a child is interesting. The ending of the film is moving and rewards the viewer for sticking through the movie as a whole. Although the film could have probably used some edits, I did not mind that it was 153 minutes long (with around 10 minutes of credits…yikes!). As he carries out his duties as a Blade Runner K undertakes an existential journey and discovers the truth about himself while having to make a choice whether to obey his makers/masters or to assert what independence he has. There is more depth to the story than what I am saying in this review, but overall BR2049 is not as bad as I initially believed it to be.

[AndyDursin]

The ending of the film is moving and rewards the viewer for sticking through the movie as a whole.

I totally agree Michael -- it's a lovely ending, and was kind of unexpected given the way movies conclude today, less content to tell a story (and bring some emotion) than end inconclusively with the hopes future installments will be coming down the pike.

I like 2049 but it works more effectively IMO the more it's separated from the 1982 movie. At times the connections with the 1982 film are its weakest element because it looks and sounds like a different, unconnected universe, especially in Ford and OImos' weird reprisals of their roles -- where they seem to be playing themselves and not the characters from its predecessor!

[mkaroly]

‘SALEM’S LOT by Stephen King (1975) – Novelist Ben Mears, a one time resident of the small, quiet town of Jerusalem’s Lot, returns to take up residence in his home town in September 1975. He is haunted by the tragic death of his wife in a motorcycle accident; he is further haunted by an old mansion overlooking the town (the Marsten House) which still gives him nightmares. Mears attempts to rent the Marsten House but discovers that it has been sold to Straker and Barlow, a couple of strangers who want to open up an antique shop downtown. Mears ends up at Eva Miller’s boarding house, begins a relationship with town cutie Susan Norton (much to the chagrin of her mother Ann), and starts to write his novel. But then a dark cloud descends upon the town: a young boy goes missing while another gets deathly sick and dies. Others begin to get sick and die under mysterious circumstances only to return at night looking to feed and create more of their kind. Ben Mears realizes with horror that the current residents of the Marsten House are responsible for what has happened in Jerusalem’s Lot. The duo are not what they seem to be, and only Ben and his small group of friends (Susan, Matt, Mark, and Dr. Cody) can combat the ancient and unholy evil that has settled in and taken over the Lot.

In my opinion, in his longer books King normally starts and ends well; the middle sections of those books tend to drag. I am happy to say that ‘SALEM’S LOT does not drag at all – it an absolute blast to read for several reasons. First, the story is effectively creepy, suspenseful, terrifying, and compelling from start to finish. Second, by making the town itself a character in the book (something he is consistently good at doing in his works), King prevents the narrative from dragging. To that end, the secondary characters are essential in the narrative – they are the life blood of the town that gives it its uniqueness and life. When King takes a break from the main characters and their storylines, the secondary characters and their lives/stories within the town are compelling enough to keep the reader invested in the narrative until the main characters return. Third, the villains are fantastic – Barlow (a master vampire lord) and Straker (his guardian) are pure evil; there is nothing sympathetic about them at all. King does a great job in keeping Barlow mysterious by only having him show up a couple of times in the first two acts of the story; in the third act he takes center stage in all of his horrific malevolence. Finally, it is easy to root for the main characters in the story because they are strong and likeable. I love how King provides the reader with deep insight into the personalities, inner motivations, and thoughts of his characters. I am personally not a fan of vampire stories in which the vampire is a tragic romantic figure (though I do like a couple of books in the Vampire Chronicles series by Anne Rice); I prefer vampire stories in which the vampire is the embodiment of all things evil and pestilent. King’s book falls into this latter category, and I hold it up to be one of the best vampire stories ever written (along with Bram Stoker’s Dracula).

Unfortunately, I cannot say the same positive things about the TV miniseries adaptation of the book…though Tobe Hooper’s SALEM’S LOT (1979) certainly has its moments. The best it has to offer is its vampire make–up designs and some of the effects surrounding the night visitations of the vampires – very memorably creepy and effective. I credit the movie with a great Nosferatu-ish looking Barlow (though see below); his first appearance in the film (when Ned Tibbets is in jail) was very well filmed for a jump scare (and it worked on me). Despite these positives, there were too many negatives for me to really enjoy the film much. I found it to be incredibly boring at times, mostly due to the acting. For example, Bonnie Bedelia was much too reserved to be the Susan from the book; on top of that she didn’t look anything like I imagined Susan to look. For that matter, no one in the film looked much like anyone from the book from what I can remember! I honestly found the acting to be very flat and B-movie-ish at times, bordering on campy. The exterior of the Marsten house didn’t have the creepiness and evil presence that the house came across as having in the book – it did not look like the frightening place it was in the book. Aside from the one jump scare I reacted to, I did not feel scared, terrified, or “on the edge of my seat” for the rest of the film. The book was much scarier and more chilling.

While the film made several references to key scenes from the book (for example: the visitations, the violent death of Barlow, the abduction of Ralphie Glick, etc.) and faithfully followed the narrative arc of the book, much was (understandably) changed to adapt it to a television miniseries. I imagine, for example, that the filmmakers made Susan’s father a physician so they would not have to pay a different actor to play the part of Jimmy Cody M.D. from the book! I would argue though that the worst thing the filmmakers did was make changes to the character of Barlow. In the book he is an erudite, exotic foreigner who speaks with a silver forked tongue. He is so sinister and utterly repulsive on the one hand, yet full of a hypnotically majestic which makes him appealing to the characters in the book. Unfortunately, in the movie he is nothing but a horror monster whose mouthpiece is Straker (played boringly by James Mason). This was a very disappointing change by the filmmakers - it robbed the viewer of a powerful character. In the book Straker is not killed by Ben Mears’ gun (he dies by Barlow’s hand in the book for making a grievous error); this is important because Barlow has a profound depth of arrogance and malevolence that does not come across in the movie at all. It is almost as if Straker is the master who uses the vampire lord for his own purposes (the opposite of what you’ll read in the book). Also, Barlow’s death scene changes locations in the movie: in the book Barlow is not hiding in the Marsten house (which symbolizes Barlow’s cunning and foresight). In the movie Barlow is in the Marsten house…in the obvious place. All in all I do not feel like Hooper’s film did the book much justice. If King had written ‘SALEM’S LOT straight–up as a TV miniseries screenplay, then I probably would have enjoyed it more than I did. And maybe I would have enjoyed it more if the acting was better. I greatly prefer the book to the TV miniseries.

[Monterey Jack]

I, too, finished reading Salem's Lot a few weeks ago. While I agree the book is stronger than the TV miniseries, I still think Tobe Hooper's version is positively dripping with eerie atmosphere and gets around the constrictions of late-70s network considerations admirably. It's a shame that Barlow is presented as a one-note Nosferatu-style monster and not the insinuating charmer he is on the page, the makeup on Reggie Nalder remains impressive, and that beautifully-timed jump scare is one of the best trouser-soiling ones in a King adaptation. It's a flawed production, but definitely one of the better King adaptations on the small or big screens.

[AndyDursin]

Hooper's LOT is at least much superior to the hideous Rob Lowe version!

I read the book also and really enjoyed it -- I've mentioned this before, but at Boston College we had a course, HISTORY OF HORROR, that was taught by this professor who wrote the book IN SEARCH OF DRACULA (itself made into a movie documentary narrated by Christopher Lee). A bunch of King books were part of the course so I read THE SHINING and SALEM'S LOT as part of it.

I do understand where you are coming from Michael -- I think the Hooper mini-series is kind of overrated. It's definitely good, it has its moments, but it plays a lot like "70s TV" and the dumb ending sets up a weekly series that never obviously happened. Between that, the languid pacing at times and David Soul's blank performance, I don't think of it as a classic. Personally I prefer some of the later King mini-series like THE STAND and even IT, the silly climax of that notwithstanding.

[mkaroly]

There is a Rob Lowe version of Salem's Lot??? Lol...pass!

[AndyDursin]

TNT mini-series with Rutger Hauer as Barlow, plus Donald Sutherland, James Cromwell...it was directed by Mikael Solomon (who shot THE ABYSS, FAR AND AWAY, ALWAYS, BACKDRAFT -- but was a better cinematographer than a filmmaker).

[mkaroly]

THE MALTESE FALCON by Dashiell Hammett (1930). San Francisco detective Sam Spade is a hard–nosed street smart private detective who loves to take risks, hates to be challenged by authority figures (especially cops and District Attorneys), and lives by his own rules. He shares an office with his partner, Miles Archer; they also happen to share a woman (unbeknownst to Miles, Spade is having an affair with his wife). One day a mysterious woman by the name of Miss Wonderly hires Sam and his partner to tail Floyd Thursby who supposedly ran off with her sister. Archer volunteers to tail Thursby but ends up dead later that evening. Spade later discovers that Thursby himself was shot and killed not long afterwards. As he tries to figure out what happened (and protect himself from being blamed by the cops for one or both of the murders), Spade learns that Miss Wonderly is actually Miss Brigid O’Shaunessey. He further learns that she is involved in a treasure hunt of sorts along with a few other people: the effeminate Joel Cairo, a strange young man who has been tailing him, and the obese Mr. Gutman. They are all looking for the Maltese Falcon, a small treasure worth an immense fortune. It is up to Sam to untangle the web of lies and deceit they all throw at him not only to find the black bird first and solve the murders of Archer and Thursby, but also to save his own skin.

Hammett’s book is generally considered to be one of the best detective stories ever written. Sam Spade is a ‘tough-as-nails-take-no-crap-from-anyone’ type of person. He has a hard edge to him and lives dangerously; as I read the book I thought of him as perhaps an inspiration of sorts for the character of James Bond (he drinks and smokes, works alone, loves to live on the edge, and takes innumerable chances). As the main character in the story he is likeable at times but very irritating and unlikeable at other times. He sleeps with Brigid to get information; he has an affair with his office partner’s wife; he looks out mostly only for himself and is arrogant. He is a selfish man and not always easy to root for. The book takes several twists and turns which will either add to the suspense or add to your frustration as a reader; having been written in 1930, some of the jargon was very confusing to me (lol), but it all felt realistic. This is the only book by Hammett that I have ever read; I sometimes felt his prose was a bit klunky and hard to follow but sometimes it was pretty smooth. Hammett was a former private detective so his book is full of observational details (clothing, facial features, and little unique character habits like quivering lips, smirking, etc.). I did find the story compelling and was looking forward to the novel’s final twist, so I ultimately enjoyed it, but I wish that Spade had been a bit less dark of a character.

The most popular adaptation of Hammett’s book is John Huston’s version of THE MALTESE FALCON starring Humphrey Bogart, Mary Astor, Sydney Greenstreet, and Peter Lorre from 1941. There was a version of his book made in 1931 (starring Bebe Daniels and Ricardo Cortez); the earlier movie is faithful to much of the dialogue and narrative arc of the book, but Spade is too “upper–class” in his dress and appearance. The filmmakers of the earlier version also chose to emphasize Spade’s sleaziness (which they could do because the 1931 version was made before the Production Code) over his street toughness. I don’t particularly care for the 1931 version, especially the ending. The 1941 version, however, is a home run. The acting is outstanding and Huston remained very faithful to the dialogue and narrative arc of the book (moreso than the previous version, in my opinion). Huston and Bogart focused on the hard–nosed street smart aspect of Spade’s character. It was nearly impossible to read Hammett’s book without thinking of Bogart’s interpretation of Sam Spade, but I feel like he did truly capture the essence of the character (but without the overt sleaziness which, although a key part of Spade’s character, was left out due to the Production Code I imagine). I actually had more sympathy for the film Spade over the book Spade. In all honesty, if you watch Huston’s film you have pretty much read the book.

There were some slight changes to the book’s narrative in the film. For example:

-in the book Gutman’s daughter Rhea plays a part in keeping Spade busy while the treasure hunting cabal tries to find the falcon. This is absent in the film. Also absent from the film is the narrative of a case Spade worked on (the Flitcraft case) which he tells Brigid while waiting on Joel Cairo to come to his apartment.
-due to the Production Code, even though there is a shot of Cairo fixing Wilmer’s hair after he had been knocked out and placed on the couch, Cairo’s homosexuality (while very clearly shown in Spade’s first encounter with him) is not as explicit as the book. In the book Cairo is violently distraught over Spade’s treatment of Wilmer, suggesting he has an intense attraction to (if not relationship with) the younger Wilmer. Cairo’s homosexuality was not even really suggested in the 1931 version (and if it was I totally missed it).
-also due to the Production Code, Spade does not sleep with Brigid as he does in the book. Nor does Spade require Brigid to take off her clothes in the kitchen so that he can find a missing $1000 bill (one that Gutman ultimately palmed as a “test” for Spade at the end of the film).
-in the book, after Spade sleeps with Brigid, he steals her apartment key and turns the place over looking for the falcon and clues. Later he searches Cairo’s room with a hotel detective and discovers the clue about La Paloma, a ship which plays a significant part in the plot. Both these scenes are absent from the movie; instead, after Spade is drugged by Gutman he searches Gutman’s apartment and finds the information about La Paloma there.
-the book’s epilogue/coda is different from the movie’s. The movie’s ending/coda sounds a note of tragedy and loss with a great line of dialogue about the falcon (“The uhh…stuff that dreams are made of”). I feel like the book’s ending is darker and more disturbing in a way.
-in addition, in the book’s ending Wilmer (who all decide should be the ‘fall guy’ in both the book and the movie) escapes and ends up shooting Gutman. In the movie Gutman, Wilmer, and Cairo are all captured by the police.

As I mentioned, the acting is great and makes the film re-watchable. Mary Astor is fantastic as the duplicitous and untrustworthy ‘femme fatale’ Brigid. Greenstreet looks and acts the part of Gutman from the book, and Lorre had to have had a blast playing the role of Cairo. The film is great to watch from a technical standpoint as well (for example, a low level camera making Gutman look larger and more imposing, the lighting and shades, etc.). All in all I would say the film does immense justice to the book, and it is easy to see why it continues to be a classic.