Latest / This Film is Lit / Prequel to Salem's Lot - Maurice Fan Reaction, Salem's Lot Preview

Transcript

Prequel to Salem's Lot - Maurice Fan Reaction, Salem's Lot Preview · This Film is Lit

• 0:10
  Speaker A: On this week's prequel episode, we follow up on our Morris listener polls and preview Salem's Live. Hello and welcome back to this Film is Lit podcast. We're talking about movies that are based on books. I don't know why I always feel the need to say how much we have. We're just gonna get into it like we always do and start with our patron shout outs.
• 0:37
  Speaker B: I put up with you because your father and mother were our finest patrons. That's why.
• 0:42
  Speaker A: Two new patrons this week, both at the $5 Hugo Award winning level, and they are Matt and Garand. Or Garand.
• 0:54
  Speaker B: My guess would be Garand.
• 0:55
  Speaker A: Mine would be too, but it could be Garand. I don't know. My guess would also be Garand. But thank you both for joining at the $5 level. Make sure you check out that bonus content. Got quite a backlog now going back a few years, so you got at least 30 episodes to get to, I would guess. I don't know, actually know how many bonus episodes we have out by now, but over 20 would be my guess. So make sure you go back and listen to all that good, good bonus content. And as always, we would like to thank our Academy Award winning patrons. And they are Nicole Goble, Eric Harpo Rat, Nathan Vicapocalypse, Mathilde Cottonwood, Steve. Teresa Schwartz, Ian from Wine Country, Kelly Napier, Gratch justgratch. Shelby says 2025 is the year of the vampire. That darn Skag and V. Frank. Thank you all very much for your continued support. We are doing another vampire thing already. We've done two vampire things.
• 1:57
  Speaker B: Well, so what happened was, did you.
• 2:00
  Speaker A: Also not know what Salem's Lot was about?
• 2:01
  Speaker B: No, I actually did because somebody at some point, and it might have been Shelby in like a message or a random comment or something, said like something about Salem's Lot being like Stephen King's take on Dracula. So I wanted to wait until after we had covered Dracula, but I didn't want to do it immediately after Dracula.
• 2:25
  Speaker A: So you put it like a month in between.
• 2:26
  Speaker B: Yeah, I wanted to still be able to remember Dracula well enough, but I didn't want to do them one right on top of the other.
• 2:34
  Speaker A: Fair enough. We'll have to mention this again in the main episode because on top of people that don't listen to the prequel episode, which I'm sure is a lot of people, even more people probably skip over the Patron shots at the beginning. So we'll have to get back to this in the main episode and remind people of why we're Doing this. But anyways, thank you all very much for your continued support. Katie, it's time to see what the people had to say about Morris.
• 2:58
  Speaker B: Yeah, well, you know, that's just like your opinion, man. On Patreon, we had two votes for the book and one for the movie. And we also had some people that couldn't decide.
• 3:11
  Speaker A: Right.
• 3:11
  Speaker B: Not on Patreon, really. We had. We had people who didn't watch or read.
• 3:15
  Speaker A: Oh, that's what I. Yes, yes, yes.
• 3:19
  Speaker B: We had a comment from Eric, who was the patron who requested Morris. I'm going to struggle to not say Maurice again because I'm reading it. Eric said. So happy to hear the Clive hair appreciation. And yes, I love all of the hair, mustache, costume commentary re Clive. Also love in the book that when Morris learns that Clive and Anne called him eighth, he downgrades the kind of gift he plans to give to them.
• 3:48
  Speaker A: That's a good little.
• 3:49
  Speaker B: That's fair enough. Eric also said, I see the crumbling of Pendersley more as a reflection of the elite landowner class rather than Clive himself. That's not something I considered before, but I like it. I thought that Forster commenting that Clive's class really can't sustain itself. They don't actually make money or do anything. There's a lot of allusions to them having these financial difficulties. So I assumed it was class commentary. I think it could be both, honestly.
• 4:19
  Speaker A: I think porque no less dose. I think it's definitely. That reads very well. Yeah, I guess I didn't. I'm not sure how much of those details come through in the film. So.
• 4:29
  Speaker B: Yeah, I don't think it comes through in the film as much. But definitely in the book there's a lot of talk of, like, they can't really afford to sustain their. Their lifestyle.
• 4:38
  Speaker A: I think there is some mention in the movie, maybe even in that exact scene where he says something about it being like a money pit or, I don't know, something about money. But it wasn't enough of a recurring theme that it triggered in my brain as class commentary. But it was very easy to tie it to Clive and his sort of what's going on with him. But that makes perfect sense.
• 4:59
  Speaker B: Well, and especially because I believe in neither the book nor the movie. We don't really get that commentary on the house crumbling until Clive is like, married to a woman.
• 5:10
  Speaker A: Which. Yes. Yeah.
• 5:12
  Speaker B: Eric went on to say, that's so funny how you guys interpreted the blackmail thing because that just didn't work for me at all. I thought it was so obvious that Alec wasn't trying to blackmail him initially. That I didn't get why Morris jumped to that conclusion.
• 5:25
  Speaker A: The initial letter didn't read super like blackmail to me.
• 5:30
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 5:30
  Speaker A: But everything about how Alec was acting and everything he said post letter of the day.
• 5:37
  Speaker B: Yeah. Like everything that came after that, like there was. There was some specific stuff where I think I even had in my notes that like, oh, that's kind of sinister.
• 5:45
  Speaker A: Yeah. There's like post. The letter itself, the wording did not feel super blackmail to me. But the way he was acting after and then specifically some of the things he said and stuff, up until it gets resolved felt very much like, oh, he's blackmail.
• 6:02
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 6:03
  Speaker A: And I wasn't sure how Morris got to the point where he thought he wasn't blackmailing him. And maybe that was even more of what it was than ever. Me thinking like, oh, he's blackmailing him was. Morris clearly thought he was blackmailing him. And I was unclear in the movie what Alex said that convinced him he wasn't blackmailing him. Cause their exchange, they have an exchange in the museum, in the theater, and then right after that, or in the museum, and then right after that, it seems like Morris is like, oh, okay, I misunderstood all this. And I was like, what did he say that made you think?
• 6:39
  Speaker B: Honestly, I'm still not really sure.
• 6:41
  Speaker A: And I literally think that's just an effect of accents and not completely understanding what Alex said. And maybe some like just language barrier stuff on top of the accents. But anyway, yeah.
• 6:55
  Speaker B: Also, Brian, if you love the Clive Morris convo at the end, there's a longer version and the deleted scenes, which I love. I'm so sad they cut part of it out. The part you read at the beginning.
• 7:06
  Speaker A: Oh, it was part of what I read because so what I was reading was from the IMDb quotes section. I didn't realize that part of that wasn't in the movie. I'd have to go back and look at that.
• 7:15
  Speaker B: Well, the DVD did come in at the library, so I can finally. It came in like the day after we had to watch the movie, so we ended up streaming it. But it's so funny on this reread, I was shocked because it seemed that Clive actually just became straight. It was insane to me because we get Clive's perspective and he actually starts to be disgusted by and disinterested in Morris. But I can totally see it as him cramming down those feelings and convincing himself of things. But wow, it read very strangely and I appreciated the movie changes in all directions. There was much more towards a repressed rather than straight transformation. Clive?
• 7:56
  Speaker A: Yeah, I mean again, in the movie it very much felt like just kind of a repressed thing.
• 8:02
  Speaker B: I didn't get the impression that Forrester thought the women were stupid. It does seem like it's a bad part of Morris that he's a snob, that he belittles his family. And I think when there some lines about the sisters not having much imagination or something similar to how Morris is described and Kitty especially I think comes across, well, Morris is so awful to them in the book he's described as a tyrant. Intentionally belitting, belittling them and how they hate him unconsciously the way he kind of hates them unconsciously. And none of them can really acknowledge it. Odd dynamic, but I don't think inherently misogynistic. Also, I was absolutely not the one who requested the other Ivory movies or Forster books. I do usually suggest gay books movies though.
• 8:50
  Speaker A: I just assumed because I was like, oh, somebody, you know, you're just a James Ivory fan maybe.
• 8:55
  Speaker B: Well, I know it was my mom who requested a rumor.
• 8:57
  Speaker A: Oh, that's right.
• 8:58
  Speaker B: I did know that because that's like one of her favorite favorites. And I think don't hold me to this because I could be misremembering. I think it might have been Steve who requested the. The other one. Oh my God, now I'm completely blanking on the title. The World War II one with the butler. We all know what I'm talking about.
• 9:23
  Speaker A: The Remains of the Day.
• 9:24
  Speaker B: Yes, that one. I'll comment this here because I won't have Internet when the poll goes up that I prefer the movie. It's strange. I used to count Morris among my favorite books, but I think it's because I read it when I was reading a lot of other gay books from the time period and the difference is staggering. So many books from the time are either extremely negative, ending in the couple dying or breaking up or were these super boring moralist tracks about why it's good but without plot or characters. That this novel seemed so fresh and modern to me. But rereading it now, I do agree it's not one of Forrester's best. I think it's meandering. Spends way too much time muddling through Morris thick head and the Clive turning straight thing, so weird. I still have fondness for it though, especially as a fantasy as Forrester seems to have been writing it and especially the Clive Morris conversation at the end. Also, I just love characters who cheat themselves out of their own happiness because of internalized homophobia. See also Ennis from Brokeback Mountain. So Clive is delicious to me. Thanks again for doing one of my requests. It was great to hear your takes.
• 10:34
  Speaker A: You're welcome.
• 10:36
  Speaker B: Chiming in for one last comment. Eric left like several comments with appreciating Morris. I think it's important to take the time into perspective. At the time it was written, it was so different than anything being published at the time. And it would have had such a huge impact, both negative and positive. I imagine if it had been published around then and then Even in the 80s when the movie was released, it was such a soft, sweet love story. So different to either the sadness of AIDS movies or the horrible comedies or the terribly acted and written but sincere indie movies. They did a little documentary several decades after the movie was released and so many gay men talked about how it was such an important movie for them. So even though it's not super great through modern eyes, I think it was important when it was written, slash filmed and it's a nice piece of gay history.
• 11:25
  Speaker A: I completely agree with that. I, my, my. I think, you know, this may be vaguely responding to my comments about it being like a very simple version of like a gay, like a very expected version of a gay romance. That's true through a modern lens, yes, but not for the time period. And it's absolutely, I think the point you hit on there that's super important is comparing to a lot of the stories from that time period were either inherently anti gay in some way. Even if they were about gay people, they were often very, you know, moralistic or judgmental or they were couched in things like the AIDS crisis. And, and even if they were sympathetic, they rooted in tragedy and you know, all of these bad things that were happening at the time and, or, or they were, as he said, terribly acted and written but sincere indie movies. There are plenty of, you know, those kind of movies about gay romances at the time were either judgmental and bad in various ways or if they were not judgmental and were sincere, they were often not very good because they couldn't get the, you know, they couldn't be.
• 12:36
  Speaker B: Produced by the big studios to make your sweet gay romance movie.
• 12:41
  Speaker A: And so it is absolutely. And I can totally understand why this would be a very important film because it is, it's a quintessential period romance movie, but about a gay couple. Like it is a quintessential, you know, or. Well, I guess it's about, about a gay man and the men in his life. I guess because I say about a gay couple. Cause Clive and Morris don't end up together.
• 13:04
  Speaker B: Right? They don't end up together, but it is mostly about them.
• 13:08
  Speaker A: But it, but it is just like, like A Room with a View or whatever. It's. It's one of those movies, you know, a very classic cinema feeling. It feels like a classic film and it has all of the, the quality and the writing and the, the acting is all on par with, you know, cinematic classics of this era. But it's about gay men. And I think that is, yeah, obviously very important and very. Even if the plot itself is not particularly like unique or groundbreaking or anything like that.
• 13:46
  Speaker B: Not now, not now.
• 13:48
  Speaker A: Yes, it's obvious that at the time it was doing something very special.
• 13:55
  Speaker B: I think so for sure. Our next comment on Patreon was from Kelly Napier who said, first things first. I'd like to change the name of the novel from Morris to Fuck you Clive. Because seriously, fuck you, Clive. What a terribly awful person to treat someone else's life and emotions with so little care and respect. A line at the end of the book summed it up entirely for me when Morris said, you'll do anything for me except see me. As someone who once spent far too long with a person who did anything for me except see me. I understood more than I wish what it meant to Morris to love someone with a ferocity that would never be returned. So fuck you, Clive.
• 14:38
  Speaker A: There you go.
• 14:39
  Speaker B: Okay, got him. Moving on. I understand why at the time it was written, Forster may have viewed it as unpublishable because of societal views of same sex love at the time. But I saw this as more of a story about the power of what intense love can do to someone regardless of gender. I identify as straight, but I saw myself in a lot of the characters who identified as queer because relationships are relationships and that's that. As you can probably tell, this book got me deep in my feels real quick.
• 15:08
  Speaker A: I want to chime in on that. I agree and I think it's one of those things where good stories, regardless, it's one of the only. I'm going to figure out how to phrase this. There is some truth to the idea that good stories don't require truly great stories, don't require perfect representation in order to be meaningful or impactful to people. Representation is important and it is a very good and important thing for stories to represent people from all sort of different. All sorts of different minoritized groups and stuff like that. But you don't have like. It is true that plenty of gay people will watch straight romances and find things that connect with them and vice versa. And so when it really comes down to it, truly great stories I think you can connect with kind of regardless of who the story is about.
• 16:04
  Speaker B: Yeah, I think that's a testament to the writing.
• 16:07
  Speaker A: Yeah. And. And if the stories that have universal themes, I think I would couch that only slightly by saying that there are obviously some very specific, like, niche things that a movie could be exploring that may not apply to everybody.
• 16:21
  Speaker B: Yeah. You know what I mean, for sure.
• 16:23
  Speaker A: But terms of things like romance and stuff like that, you can cross boundaries of, you know, like a gay romance can be just as moving and somebody who is straight can connect with it just as much as a straight romance and vice versa. But it's still important to have representation.
• 16:43
  Speaker B: No, I agree. So Kelly went on to say, as you can probably tell, this book got me deep in my feels. The movie was good, but it fell short to me compared to the book. I was trying to figure out why, and I think I decided that the casting just wasn't doing it for me. I'm not sure I can explain why. It just felt off compared to what I had envisioned in my head, but it just did. I do know for sure that I imagined Morris as a brunette, not a blonde, and really struggled with that throughout the movie. It's probably because the movie poster I saw had Hugh Grant featured more prominently than James Willby, giving the implication that Grant would be playing the main role. Once again, here comes Clive ruining everything.
• 17:26
  Speaker A: I. I thought the same thing. To be fair, having just seen the COVID or the.
• 17:31
  Speaker B: No, I totally thought the same thing, too. I was like, oh, he's going to be playing Morris.
• 17:35
  Speaker A: Yeah, yeah.
• 17:37
  Speaker B: No. And I think I responded to Kelly's comment on Patreon and said, like, because I had gotten the impression from your notes in the prequel episode that they were kind of like, similarly unknown at the time that they made this movie.
• 17:54
  Speaker A: Actors.
• 17:55
  Speaker B: The actors.
• 17:55
  Speaker A: Yeah, yeah.
• 17:56
  Speaker B: Hugh Grant and James Williams.
• 17:57
  Speaker A: They had both been in, I think, one movie together.
• 17:59
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 18:00
  Speaker A: Which was like a. Like a college movie.
• 18:02
  Speaker B: So I was wondering, like, at what point Hugh Grant started to be featured much more prominently in the advertising. In the advertising.
• 18:09
  Speaker A: I don't know. I don't know. I'd have to double check. But what I had read was that at the time, at least, of casting, Hugh Grant, I think, had been in one movie, and it was a. It was a movie that James Willby.
• 18:18
  Speaker B: Had also been in. Yeah. Like, not a huge movie. Yeah.
• 18:20
  Speaker A: It was a small Movie. Yeah.
• 18:23
  Speaker B: All right, our next comment was from Nathan who said.
• 18:28
  Speaker A: And didn't. Wasn't there also a comment that responded to that, saying that.
• 18:31
  Speaker B: Yes, I believe Eric replied and said that, yes, in the book Morris was described as having dark hair and I believe also Clive was described as blonde.
• 18:41
  Speaker A: Yeah, so they, they made.
• 18:42
  Speaker B: Yeah, they, they, they flippity flopped it.
• 18:45
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 18:45
  Speaker B: So next comment was from Nathan and Nathan said, I have to give this pretty strongly to the book. And that's surprising because I didn't love it while reading it. I'm not fully convinced that it even had a fully happy ending. It was definitely better than Bury youy Gays, but I didn't feel like Morris and Scudder had much connection beyond fucking twice. I really didn't believe that theirs was a love destined to last, especially when put under the intense social pressures it was about to face. On top of that, Clive's ending was profoundly depressing.
• 19:17
  Speaker A: Clive's ending is depressing. I don't know if you're even supposed to believe that their love is. Well, apart from, like I said, I think there's the impending doom of World War I hanging over all of this, especially because we know.
• 19:34
  Speaker B: Well, and there is actually. And Nathan's about to talk about the author's note at the end as well, but I don't think he mentions this specifically. But in that author's note, Forrester also talks about how the original ending to the novel that he wrote had like an epilogue scene where you catch up with Morris and Alec, like years on down the line, but he ended up taking it out because of World War I. Of World War I. And he was like, okay, well this no longer makes sense.
• 20:02
  Speaker A: Yeah. But point being, my idea was that I even. And before getting into where Nathan's gonna go with this, I don't even necessarily. It's a happy ending, but I didn't come away from the movie going, well, they're gonna be together forever. What they are gonna do is be together for a while. And again, even this is disregarding the whole World War I thing. Just take that out of the equation for this. I didn't get the impression that like, oh, they're definitely gonna be together forever, but it's a happy ending because they get to be together. And more importantly, Morris has self actualized.
• 20:35
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 20:36
  Speaker A: And gets to really live his truth, as it were. And whether that's with Alec or not down the road doesn't really matter. It's more important that he has realized.
• 20:47
  Speaker B: Yeah, I agree. And I think Nathan's about to come to a similar conclusion.
• 20:54
  Speaker A: Sorry if I.
• 20:55
  Speaker B: But I do agree, like, I don't think it matters if they're together forever or not. I don't think that's the point. Okay, so Nathan went on to say, I had my perspective shifted by the writer's note at the end, which Katie mentioned during the pod. While I think E.M. forster was more convinced than I that Alec and Morris were a happily ever after couple, I think the real happiness of the ending for the author comes intentionally at the expense of Clive. In the endnote, EM mentions that he considered adding an epilogue, but ended up cutting it because the final scene where Morris tells off Clive was the perfect and only reasonable ending. And I think he is correct. The happiness of the novel's ending is not derived from a belief that Alec and Morris will be happily ever after, but rather that by being themselves they achieve a happiness that no amount of societal acceptability can provide. Yes, Morris's ending is happy in direct relation to how miserable Clive's ending is. The social order, while still strong, has declined to the point where an ending rejecting its rules is even possible. It's happy purely because it isn't a reward for cowardice like what Clive displays. We are meant to relish in his distress at the end because it shows that he's wrong and there's a better way. It's a dark happiness, but it shows that society has shifted enough to allow for any happiness at all. The movie was, to me, a pale imitation of this same message. It's a dark happiness and I think they were not quite willing to commit to the bit. I think switching the order of the scenes at the end was a disastrous mistake. This is a story about Clive and Morris and it should end with their story, which, while bleak on many levels, is the fitting ending to the story told. This wasn't meant to be a happily ever after rom com. We should leave the movie on the high of Morris telling Clive off for his cowardice, but knowing the darkness under that happiness as we see how ruined he has become by compromising.
• 22:51
  Speaker A: So I. I disagree with that. I personally, like. I agree with the first, like Maurice's happy ending. Where'd it go? The happiness of the novel's ending is not derived from a belief that Alec and Morris will be happily ever after, but rather, by being themselves, they achieve a happiness. I think the movie nailed that because that was exactly what I got out of the movie, as clear by what I said before we got to that part. And I think that I would counter. I would disagree with your argument that those scenes should be switched. Cause in the book they're what you said like what he said. Right. Where in the book it is. He goes to Alec first and then.
• 23:27
  Speaker B: He goes to Clive and then he goes to Clive.
• 23:28
  Speaker A: I like the movie's change there because still gives us that ending with Clive and we still. I. I got that exact meaning that he apparently intended based on the author's note or whatever. I got that directly out of the movie. That was exactly how I interpreted the movie. But by ending on Morris and Alec together, you end on the joy and not the. It's a more optimistic ending that feels more celebratory of their journey. And the, the message about Clive and his repressing his. His. His true self is still very much there. But by backseating it slightly, the movie central or focuses on Morris's self realization and self actualization, which to me is a more uplifting and. And powerful message than. Than reveling in the. In where Clive is at. I think that's important counterpoint to what is going on with Morris and Alec. But I think ending on that wouldn't have worked as well for me.
• 24:53
  Speaker B: I agree with you and I do believe that was something I had better in the movie was that they switched them around. And for me it comes down to a kind of a balance and being able to have that scene with Clive where Morris gets to have that final say and almost kind of throw it.
• 25:13
  Speaker A: In his face and we get to. And then we get him.
• 25:16
  Speaker B: Yeah. But then we also get to balance that with like you said, like that love and that joy with the scene with Alex.
• 25:26
  Speaker A: And it feels more. And to me that feels like a more transgressive choice to me. The idea of ending on gay joy as opposed to closeted misery.
• 25:36
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 25:37
  Speaker A: Is. Is to me a more progressive choice, especially in that time period potentially. And we still do end with it. And again, I don't, I don't. I can see your point. And I don't like. It's clearly like a very subjective thing. I don't think there's like a right answer here necessarily. But to me, I do really prefer the way the movie did it. I just think it leaves a more positive final note that to me adds a. Ends the movie in a more positive place for the whole concept of being gay.
• 26:21
  Speaker B: Right.
• 26:23
  Speaker A: If that makes any sense. You know what I mean?
• 26:26
  Speaker B: Yeah. No, and I think it's important too that we're not ending on this note of like we're ending on a note of Morris moving on and not like continuing to be hung up on Clive and this relationship that he had with Clive. He says his bit and then he moves on with his life because he has achieved that self actualization.
• 26:52
  Speaker A: But the movie still gives us. We still get to see Morris's reaction to that and him shuddering himself from it. And all of it, we still get to see all of that. But it is not the final note and it is not the main focus of where Morris's story ends. Morris's story ends where we see it it with Alec. It does not end with Clive. And I think that is important.
• 27:13
  Speaker B: Yeah, no, I agree. Nathan went on to say, on a note of personal failure, I never, not even once, read Maurice as Morris.
• 27:25
  Speaker A: Fair. It's fair. It's so hard to read it.
• 27:28
  Speaker B: Oh, and I never ever would have guessed, never. If we had not had that one comment early on from we would have.
• 27:37
  Speaker A: Got to the movie. We would have gotten to the movie.
• 27:39
  Speaker B: And been like, what in the world? As I mentioned in my other post, I think the event that motivated Clive's about face in the book was how Morris kissed him in front of Morris's mom. That being said, I think the book did a great job of not spotlighting this fact so that the reader has a real sense that it came out of nowhere. I was like Katie, very confused about why things changed. And seeing the movie's version, which pinpointed when the change happens, more clearly, allowed me to recognize why I did not think that Alec was actually blackmailing Morris. His notes felt earnest and not at all threatening. I just felt so bad for him, waiting alone in the boathouse for his love. I thought the point was that by rejecting the initial genuine notes, Morris pushed Alec into a position where he felt at the museum that he had to blackmail him even though he didn't want to or mean to.
• 28:34
  Speaker A: Oh, maybe, I don't know, maybe. So I had to go back and read the Wikipedia article to understand what happened there. And according to the Wikipedia article article, he assumed the whole time that he was blackmailing him. But we all know that Wikipedia summaries are not necessarily super accurate, so I don't know what you're supposed to get from that. I truly. There's too much of Rupert Graves thick. Whatever. I don't know what part of England that accent is from, but I had a hard time understanding him.
• 29:02
  Speaker B: So that meeting in the museum was 10 years after the awkward sex talk. So Morris and his husband to be did meet up with the teacher and his family. So that's a nice like yeah, kind of bookend. Yeah. And Nathan's last comment here was, I do find cricket quite confusing, but I think it's actually simpler than baseball if you were used to it. You just hit the ball and run as long as you can.
• 29:28
  Speaker A: Okay, well, see, that's an oversimpl. That has to be an oversimplification of the rules.
• 29:33
  Speaker B: I don't know anything about cricket.
• 29:34
  Speaker A: I. I don't either. Well, I know a little bit about cricket and I will say that's an oversimplified. That's like saying that's. This. You could say that about baseball, I guess, which is. Is true in a sense, that you just hit the ball and run as long as you can. But that is way underselling all of the rules involved in baseball. So I don't. I'll take your word for it because it sounds like you do at least vaguely maybe understand cricket and baseball, maybe you don't. I don't know. I can't tell because you said, I find quick cricket quite confusing. So I don't know if you actually understand it or not, but I need somebody else to chime in. I wonder. We have a co worker that might know cricket and I have to ask him if he knows anything about cricket and what he. And if it's. And if he knows anything about baseball and which one is more or less confusing.
• 30:26
  Speaker B: Stay tuned for that. Over on Facebook, we didn't have any comments, but we had one vote for the book and four for the movie. On Instagram, we likewise did not have any comments, but we had one vote for the book, one for the movie, and one listener who couldn't decide. And then over on Goodreads, we had zero votes for the book, one for the movie, and a comment from Mikko, who said multiple times during this story, I was wondering whether things were too old timey, too posh, or too British for me to understand. Usually all three, I assume.
• 31:02
  Speaker A: I would assume it's all three.
• 31:04
  Speaker B: I ended up watching the movie first, and the book offered clarification and meaning to multiple interactions. I had a hard time parsing during my watch. On the other hand, I liked the movie Morris better than the book version. I didn't really care for the story. Like I've said, pure character drama and love stories really do nothing for me.
• 31:24
  Speaker A: Fair enough.
• 31:25
  Speaker B: Still, I really enjoyed Morris's final conversation with Claude.
• 31:28
  Speaker A: Everybody loves that scene.
• 31:29
  Speaker B: I will give my vote to the movie, but it is very close.
• 31:32
  Speaker A: I mean, it's one of those scenes like, regardless of absent any context, you can Just watch that scene and be like, whoo. Typewriter was on fire for this one. Or, you know, however they write. Wrote that scene. I don't know how Forrester. Because you said a lot of it is from the book.
• 31:47
  Speaker B: From my memory. Yeah.
• 31:49
  Speaker A: I don't know if he was writing on a typewriter or not, but the quill was. I know he was after a quill, but probably a typewriter.
• 31:56
  Speaker B: Probably a typewriter. Yeah, probably so. Our winner this week in the listener poll was the Movie, with seven votes to the books, four, plus our one listener who couldn't decide.
• 32:08
  Speaker A: All right, thank you all for all of your comments and your votes. We really appreciate it. Love reading and responding to your feedback. It's so much fun. No Learning Things segment this week. Cause I think we've learned about Stephen King.
• 32:20
  Speaker B: We have.
• 32:21
  Speaker A: We've covered enough of his things by now. But we are gonna learn a little bit about the novel we're covering this week. Salem's Lot.
• 32:33
  Speaker C: Ben Mears has been away too long. And now at last, he's come home.
• 32:39
  Speaker A: The men fought at Valley Forge. Daddy.
• 32:41
  Speaker C: Come back safe home to the childhood memories, to the old familiar faces, to a life unmolested by time.
• 32:51
  Speaker B: And with your saints, let him rejoice in your presence forever.
• 32:55
  Speaker A: We ask it through Christ our Lord.
• 32:57
  Speaker B: Amen.
• 32:58
  Speaker C: Home to Salem's Lot, a town too good to be true.
• 33:04
  Speaker B: Salem's lot is a 1975 horror novel by American author Stephen King, who we have covered numerous properties by.
• 33:14
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 33:14
  Speaker B: But this is his second published novel.
• 33:19
  Speaker A: Oh, really?
• 33:19
  Speaker B: Yes.
• 33:19
  Speaker A: I did not know it was that early.
• 33:20
  Speaker B: Second one.
• 33:22
  Speaker A: What's the first?
• 33:22
  Speaker B: Carrie.
• 33:23
  Speaker A: Okay.
• 33:23
  Speaker B: Yeah. Which we also.
• 33:24
  Speaker A: Which I think that's actually, like, also the order they did the movies. Roughly. I would have to check my notes. And I may be in my notes, but maybe I didn't write it down, but I think I remember reading that. Yeah, I don't think I wrote it down. I think I remember reading that this might have been the second movie made after Carrie.
• 33:43
  Speaker B: I mean, that would make sense because it was the second.
• 33:47
  Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah. I don't know.
• 33:48
  Speaker B: Anyways, because the movies did not. At least this one did not come out that long after the book.
• 33:53
  Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah.
• 33:56
  Speaker B: So the title of the book starts with an apostrophe, which I didn't know until I got a copy of the book.
• 34:03
  Speaker A: I read this when I was researching.
• 34:05
  Speaker B: So it starts with an apostrophe because the name of the town is actually Jerusalem's Lot, but it's called Salem's Lot for short. And the characters in the book also call it the Lot, which is even shorter, but I guess not interesting enough to be a book title.
• 34:23
  Speaker A: Yep.
• 34:25
  Speaker B: So a little bit of background on this book. While he was teaching a course on fantasy and science fiction at Hampton Academy, King was inspired by Dracula, as I mentioned earlier, which was one of the books they were covering in the class. And he said, quote, one night over supper, I wondered aloud what would happen if Dracula came back in the 20th century to America, to which my wife said, he'd probably be run over by a yellow cab on Park Avenue and killed. That closed the discussion. But in the following days, my mind kept returning to the idea. It occurred to me that my wife was probably right. If the legendary Count came to New York, that is. But what if he were to show up in a sleepy little country town? What then?
• 35:12
  Speaker A: There you go. And this was the second adapt. It was Carrie and then this. Yeah, they were just banging them out.
• 35:17
  Speaker B: Right as they came out, I guess so. King wrote Salem's Lot based on that idea, originally titling it Second Coming. He then changed it to Jerusalem's Lot again on the advice of his wife, who thought that the original title sounded too much like a, quote, bad sex story, which is not what I. I think Second Coming. I think like Jesus. But fair enough. I guess. King's publishers then shortened it to the current title, thinking that the author's choice sounded too religious, which. There's like, a whole mess of things going on here.
• 35:56
  Speaker A: Weirdness there. Yeah.
• 35:59
  Speaker B: Politics during the time also influenced King's writing on the story as he was writing it during the height of the Watergate scandal. King stated, quote, during the spring, summer and fall of 1973, it seemed that the federal government had been involved in so much subterfuge and so many covert operations that the horror would never end. The fear behind Salem's Lot seems to be that the government has invaded everybody. So I'm interested to see if I.
• 36:28
  Speaker A: Get that from the text, if the Watergate.
• 36:32
  Speaker B: Yeah, Watergate vibes from this.
• 36:34
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 36:35
  Speaker B: In a 1978 interview for the Highway Patrolman magazine, King stated, quote, in a way, Salem's Lot is my favorite story, mostly because of what it says about small towns. They are kind of a dying organism. Right now. The story seems sort of down home to me. I have a special cold spot in my heart for it. He also named the novel as his personal favorite in a 1983 interview for Playboy magazine.
• 37:04
  Speaker A: I wonder what the Highway Patrolman magazine is. Is that what it sounds like? Were they interviewing Stephen King? For a magazine. Like a magazine that they distributed to highway cops.
• 37:18
  Speaker B: Like, I don't know, it was probably a literary magazine. Literary magazines have all kinds of weird names.
• 37:24
  Speaker A: Sure, yeah. No, I.
• 37:27
  Speaker B: Is it a magazine for highway patrolmen? I think magazines used to be so interesting.
• 37:34
  Speaker A: I think it was a magazine for highway patrolmen. I think maybe it's relevant because. So the main character is like a cop in this, right?
• 37:45
  Speaker B: No, he's an author.
• 37:47
  Speaker A: Oh, that's right. We'll get to it. I'm thinking of the actor. We'll get to it. Yes, you're right. Sorry. Yeah.
• 37:56
  Speaker B: So King revisited the town from this novel of Salem's Lot in the short stories Jerusalem's Lot and One for the Road, both of which appear in his 1978 story collection Nightshade Shift, which I recognized the title of and that also has Children of the Corn in it.
• 38:16
  Speaker A: I also believe there's a character in this that appears in the Dark Tower series.
• 38:22
  Speaker B: I think you're right.
• 38:22
  Speaker A: I've read that somewhere, so just felt like a relevant place to mention that because it's not in my notes, but I remember reading that somewhere.
• 38:30
  Speaker B: Aside from the 1979 two part television miniseries that we will be discussing, Salem's Lot has also been Adapted as a BBC radio drama in 1994, as a television miniseries starring Rob Lowe. In 2004, right around the same time he made the Christmas Tree, he was doing some interesting things.
• 38:51
  Speaker A: TV Kick.
• 38:52
  Speaker B: And as a feature length film that premiered on HBO Max in 2024, which.
• 38:58
  Speaker A: One of our other co workers said was very bad. I didn't see it, but.
• 39:03
  Speaker B: And then my last note here is that in 1987 Larry Cohen directed the film A Return to Salem's Lot, which was marketed as a sequel to the 1979 miniseries, but features none of the original characters.
• 39:19
  Speaker A: Great sequel. All right, it's time to learn about the film Salem's Lot.
• 39:27
  Speaker C: Stephen King, the bestselling author of Carrie and the Shining, takes you on a startling journey to Salem's Lot.
• 39:38
  Speaker A: Salem's lot is a 1979 miniseries directed by Toby Hooper, the director of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 1 and 2, Poltergeist and Life Force, among other things. One of the. The true auteurs of horror cinema. I have never seen the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and either of them, any of them, or Poltergeist for that matter, or Life Force, but I've seen parts of Poltergeist, but everything.
• 40:06
  Speaker B: Poltergeist is obviously like a horror. Like it's up there in the echelon yes.
• 40:10
  Speaker A: Everything I've ever heard. Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the first one is not only a great horror movie, but just one of the best movies like ever, like cinematically. Just, just a very, very well made movie from everything I've heard and very like groundbreaking for its time and all kinds of stuff. I know a lot of horror heads who are like, I, I'm actually not big into horror but I like watching like YouTubers talk about horror movies and stuff. And Texas Chainsaw Massacre is almost always everybody's like favorite horror movie. The first one. The film stars David Soule, James Mason, Lance Kerwin, Bonnie Bedelia, Lou Ayers, Julie Cobb and Fred Willard, among others. The only name I recognized in there was Fred Willard. He's like way down on the billing, which was funny. The film has an 80 or David Soule. We'll get to David Soule. Is that was why I mentioned. Oh, is he a cop? David Soule plays the main character who as you said is an author. But David Soule was Hutch in Starsky and Hutch, the TV series back in the 70s. So that's why I was like, oh, is he a cop? Because yeah, the film has an 89% or the miniseries has an 89% on Rotten Tomatoes, an 82 on Metacritic, and a 6.7 out of 10 on IMDb. It was nominated for three Primetime Emmys because again, it was a. I believe it aired on, on NBC back in the day. For best opening titles, they have like a Best Titles Emmy, apparently Best Makeup and Best Music Composition Parenthetical dramatic underscore. I guess they had like different categories for best Music Composition. So Warner Brothers acquired the rights to the novel and they had several screenplays produced by several different people, including Sterling Silliphant, Robert Getchell and the aforementioned Larry Cohn, who you said made a sequel down the road. Apparently all of them sucked. It was a mess. Stephen King said every director in Hollywood who's ever been involved with horror wanted to do it, but nobody could come up with a script, end quote. So they didn't use any of those. The project was then handed off to WB's TV division and they decided that it would actually work better as a miniseries because of the length. It was a pretty long book. They're like, we can do a miniseries. It'll be, you know, we do like two hour and a half long episodes. So you get a three hour movie instead of a traditional 90 to 2, 90 minute to two hour movie. Gives you some more time to cover what's in the book. So they decided to make it a miniseries. Paul Menashe had been a producer on Carrie, so they signed him on to write the script. And then after seeing a screening of Texas Chainsaw Massacre, producers on the film thought Toby Hooper would be a great director and brought him on. So getting to some other fun, interesting little facts, specifically about Reggie Nalder. Nalder nailed her. I don't actually know how to say his name. What did I say earlier when I read.
• 43:00
  Speaker B: I don't know.
• 43:01
  Speaker A: Did I not read his name? I didn't read his name earlier. Why is his name not in that? Well, Reggie Nalder is another person. Reggie Nalder, who plays the vampire. I now know this is a vampire movie. By the way, as I was writing these notes, I was like, oh, it's a vampire movie. That solves that mystery. He did not love his role. Saying about it corporate. The makeup and contact lenses were painful, but I got used to them. I liked the money best of all. End quote.
• 43:29
  Speaker B: We love an honest fellow.
• 43:31
  Speaker A: Yeah. When discussing his direction of the film, Tobe Hooper said, quote, this film is very spooky. It suggests things and always has the overtone of the grave. It affects you differently than my other horror films. It's more soft shelled. A television movie does not have blood or violence. It has atmosphere, which creates something you cannot escape. The reminder that our time is limited and that all the accoutrements that go with it. The reminder that our time is limited and all the accoutrements that go with it, such as the visuals, end quote. Unable to find a house in Ferndale apparently, which is, I think where they filmed this, that resembled the house as described in the book. The production spent an estimated $100,000 constructing a three story facade over an existing house house that would act as the house in the movie designed by Mort rabinowitz. It took 20 days to build and then apparently another $70,000 was spent constructing the interior set of the house, which was even more difficult for the designer than the exterior.
• 44:33
  Speaker B: That feels like wildly expensive for the.
• 44:36
  Speaker A: TV production at the time. That's a lot of money. Maybe. I don't actually know. Sets. Building sets is expensive. That may not be that outlandish. I legitimately have no idea. For a T movie, probably for a movie movie, probably not, but. So the vampire makeup, as I mentioned earlier, the actor did not enjoy involved glowing contact lenses that were invented by an makeup artist named Jack Young or assume makeup artist. I didn't actually double check that he's. He did the makeup or some of the Makeup, so I assumed he was a makeup artist. These contact lenses, because they glowed, could only be worn for 15 minutes at a time because then they had to be removed so that the eyes could rest for like 30 minutes to not cause issues. Again, there's a reason that the Ralph Nalder, or whatever his name was who played the Reggie Nalder was like, not a huge fan of wearing the makeup. The theatrical version of this film. They released a theatrical version of this in Europe and I read some stuff that said, like, they actually shot additional footage knowing they would release a theatrical version. Like more graphic and gory footage that was used in a theatrical release in Europe. In Spain specifically, the film was released under the title Phantasma 2, which was a supposed sequel to Phantasm from 1979. Even though the two movies have literally nothing in common. Which. This is a thing that happens occasionally over in Europe, especially Italy, I know for sure, but in Europe they were. It was not uncommon for them to like retitle movies as sequels, even though they're not really sequels, but just to like bank on. Yeah, name recognition. I don't know. It was a whole thing. Famously, Troll 2 is like a famously bad movie that is not remotely related to Troll 1. It's just. I think it's an Italian film. I can't remember. We've never done it on Good Bad or Bad Bad. But it's like one of the classic, like, good bad bad movies. It's called Troll 2, and from everything I've read, I'm pretty sure it has zero relation to Troll one. It's just. They just titled it.
• 46:44
  Speaker B: Slapped that name on there.
• 46:45
  Speaker A: Yeah. Getting into a couple reviews which were hard to find. These are mostly contemporary or modern reviews. I didn't find it. This first one may be contemporary, but I'm not sure. Helen o' Hare, writing for Empire, gave the film three out of five stars, saying, quote, it doesn't quite nail the scale of the infection, but the film scares special effects, pacing and characters more than made up for it. End quote. Then some. These are for sure modern reviews that I sourced from Rotten Tomatoes. Writing for Paste magazine, Max o' Connell said, quote, hooper comes close to creating a modern day Hammer horror film, punctuating a steady stately dread with moments of shocking power. And then for Birth Movie's Death, Jacob Knight wrote undoubtedly one of the best Stephen King adaptations and still manages to be scary years after it premiered in homes across the nation. End quote. And lots of the reviews are similar to that. This seems to be a movie that was not super successful immediately, but kind of became. Well, it was also made for TV movies, so it's hard to know, I guess, but it is a very much a horror cult classic. A lot of people regard it as a very, very good horror movie. And all of the reviews, most of the reviews are really good.
• 48:01
  Speaker B: I like the sound of best Stephen King adaptation. That piques my interest.
• 48:06
  Speaker A: Yeah, we shall see. As always, you can do us a favor by hanging over to Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Goodreads, Blue sky, any of those places interact with us so we can interact with you. You can also drop us a five star rating and write us a nice review over on Apple Podcasts or Spotify or any of those places. And you can Support us@patreon.com ThisFilmIsLit if you support us at the 15amonth level, you get access to priority recommendations. Which this one is from.
• 48:32
  Speaker B: This is a recommendation from shelby. Shelby says 2025 because 2025 is the year of the vampire. There you go.
• 48:40
  Speaker A: Thank you Shelby for keeping that rolling for us. Katie, where can people watch Salem's Lot?
• 48:46
  Speaker B: Well, as always, you can check with your local library. I have procured a copy from our local library.
• 48:51
  Speaker A: Do we actually have it?
• 48:53
  Speaker B: Yes, it came in and I'm gonna go get that tomorrow probably.
• 48:57
  Speaker A: Nice.
• 48:59
  Speaker B: Or if you still have a local video rental store, you can check with them. Other than that, you can stream this with a subscription through Amazon prime or you can rent it for around 4 bucks through Apple TV, Amazon, YouTube or Fandango at home.
• 49:15
  Speaker A: And just confirming again, we are doing the 1979 one or 70, not 79. Yeah, 79.
• 49:21
  Speaker B: 79.
• 49:22
  Speaker A: So don't.
• 49:22
  Speaker B: Don't watch the 24 one. Don't watch the 2024 one. 1979 is the one we are doing.
• 49:31
  Speaker A: I'm interested to check it out. I have heard good things. It'll be maybe. I don't know if I would say it's sacrilegious, but the fact that the first Tobe Hooper movie I'm gonna see is gonna be this and not Texas Chainsaw Massacre is probably not ideal in the eyes of some trueheads. Although again, I think most people think this is a very good movie. I don't. I think people like it a lot. But I don't know if anybody would put it on the same level as Texas Chainsaw Massacre. But anyways, I'm excited to check it out another vampire movie and see how close it is to. To Dracula.
• 50:04
  Speaker B: I have seen the vampire to see if there are parallels.
• 50:08
  Speaker A: Very clear that the vampire is inspired by y oldi.
• 50:13
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 50:13
  Speaker A: Previous vampires.
• 50:15
  Speaker B: Yeah. Looking a little no ru.
• 50:18
  Speaker A: Yeah, absolutely. It's very clearly what we're doing. Yeah, that's going to do it for this episode. We'll be back in one week's time to talk about Salem's od. Until that time, guys, gals, non binary pals and everybody else, keep reading books, keep watching movies and keep being awesome. Sam.