The Pumpkin King: SALEM’S LOT (1979)

Salem’s Lot was the first Stephen King novel I’ve read and remains my favorite of his books. It’s a good read that earnestly embraces the vampire tropes spawned by old-school gothic horror films made by Universal and Hammer. These homages are what make the novel perfect for an adaptation in any visual medium. The first SALEM’S LOT (1979) miniseries directed by the late, great Tobe Hooper (THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE (1974), POLTERGEIST (1982), etc) follows a writer named Ben Mears (David Soul) as he returns to the titular town and uncovers a mystery regarding Richard Straker (James Mason) and Kurt Barlow (Reggie Nalder) in the ominous Marsten House. SALEM’S LOT was one of the first King adaptations to capture the vibe and scale of his work in the less abbreviated miniseries format. SALEM’S LOT is definitely one of the better King miniseries for how it translates the novel’s classically spooky tone and town-wide scale in a fairly faithful fashion.

Hooper’s emphasis on generating a classically spooky vibe is very true to the book’s clear reverence for old-school Universal and Hammer films. Those movies thrived on a gothic atmosphere, muted lighting, and great production design that accented the iconic horror characters at the forefront. The miniseries’ love for old-school horror couldn’t be better shown than in scenes at the Marsten House, with the cinematography by Jules Brenner consistently panning around to show the full extent of the dilapidated, vintage surroundings. The liberal use of fog in almost every vampire-centric scene was also reminiscent of Dracula’s sequences in the first Universal DRACULA film from 1931.

It was an interesting approach by Hooper and writer Paul Monash (who also produced CARRIE (1976)) to downplay the little fun misdirections King has in the beginning regarding the threat against the town (is it a tale of witchcraft with Straker as a warlock?, a haunted house story in the Marsten House? etc.).

Instead, Hooper and Monash make the vampire nature of the threat more apparent from the start. At the point the miniseries was made, retaining this “twist” of the novel would’ve been unnecessary as around a few years had passed since publication. Thus, more people would be aware that Salem’s Lot is a vampire story by that point.

Speaking of vampires, the most memorable and drastic change between the novel and miniseries is the removal of Dracula stand-in, Barlow’s, characterization. As I read the novel, I felt actors like Jeremy Irons or Timothy Dalton would be ideal choices for a novel-accurate Barlow (if a slavishly faithful movie were to be made).

Looking more into the novel, Barlow is depicted as basically the Bela Lugosi-style or even Christopher Lee-style Dracula in everything but name, with the black hair, fancy wardrobe and hypnotic eyes. The miniseries Barlow is a more animalistic, mute Orlok stand-in.

The miniseries’ decision to depict Barlow like that was a necessary one as the classical Dracula had already been done to death by the late ‘70s. Nalder’s Barlow is still menacing, but in a far different manner than in the novel. The literary Barlow relied on his charmingly evil dialogue and what you didn’t see him do. Without any dialogue, Nalder still successfully conveys a harrowing presence in the miniseries, with his ominous body language and feral growls. The consequence of the miniseries depiction is that Straker had to be way more prominent in the miniseries than in the novel to act as Barlow’s voice. It’s curious why the miniseries didn’t combine both characters, as TV Barlow is like a one-note force of nature, besides the fantastic makeup and Nalder’s unhinged performance.

The novel’s large scale focus on the townsfolk emphasized the importance of stopping Barlow from turning everyone into vampires.

This would be good fodder for a longer-than-usual horror movie if all of the important scenes were strictly kept. The miniseries format clearly allowed for more townsfolk-centered sequences to be included.

Despite the miniseries format, It's intriguing how only one whole townsfolk sequence, outside of what was absolutely necessary for the plot, was included in the miniseries (Cully catching someone with his wife and violently threatening him with a shotgun). This was definitely done to focus on the main cast of Mears, Burke, Mark (Lance Kerwin) and Susan (Bonnie Bedelia), but even crucial scenes with them aren’t included, especially towards the end. The removal of these scenes makes the miniseries’ second half feel aimless.

The miniseries approach mostly works, but it could’ve been extended a bit more to adapt the fullest plot possible. For example, making the adaptation a three-part miniseries instead of two. At the same time, adapting the novel as a miniseries makes it more unique because it tried to capture the novel’s scope in a medium that could be as long as possible. (Within reason given this was network TV in the 1970s)

Looking towards today’s times, the new Salem’s Lot adaptation would have to be very different to stand out in the horror film market. A balance would have to be established between new ideas and novel-faithful ones. The miniseries influenced a lot of different films such as FRIGHT NIGHT (1985) and THE LOST BOYS (1987) in the vampires’ depiction and the town vs. vampire dynamic. Particularly, Jerry Dandridge from FRIGHT NIGHT as portrayed by Chris Sarandon is a rather faithful take on the novel’s Barlow in spirit, with his charismatically evil line delivery.

The original miniseries itself was already fairly close to the novel in its first two thirds. The main reasons to adapt the novel again are to take advantage of the new renaissance of King adaptations and the natural progression of special effects on a major studio’s budget. I’m very intrigued to see how a new film would hold up against the miniseries in terms of faithfulness to the source material. Considering how other recent King adaptations like FIRESTARTER (2022) have been accused of ripping-off works their source material inspired, time is clearly demanding a new adaptation to change up what came before. Another big challenge would be to top the miniseries’ imagery that has defined the novel’s public perception as a whole. Every single discussion of the novel I’ve seen always includes a photo of Barlow as he appeared in the miniseries. It’s especially impressive because, despite the existence of the 2004 miniseries, the 1979 miniseries still stands as the novel’s most iconic adaptation.

Ultimately, while the miniseries approach may not have entirely worked in adapting the novel’s story, SALEM’S LOT is still a relatively accurate adaptation and fun spooky season watch.