Salem’s Vampires (1979) | See the first screen adaptation of Stephen King’s book

In early September 2022, another adaptation of a book by master of terror Stephen King premieres. But it’s not just another story of the great author brought to the movies. It’s about Salem’s Vampires (Salem’s Lot), the second book written in the writer’s vast bibliography, which…amazing…has never been brought to the big screen before. One can imagine that the first vampire story written by a true horror legend would have its full value there. And this first film adaptation is produced by Warner and New Line in an atmosphere of overproduction – commissioned by Gary Dauberman, screenwriter of It: The Thing (2017). Judging by the excellent previous work cited in a book by King, expectations are high even with the film. Dauberman adapts the story from the screenplay and directs.

It’s only fair that you may be confused at this point, dear reader. After reading the title of the article talking about the first version of the story and shortly after the statement that The Vampires of Salem never made it to the movies. Well, here’s the thing: Vampires of Salem had three screen versions, but none of them were exactly Stephen King’s book in theaters. I explain. The first adaptation of King’s book was not a movie for the big screen, but in the form of a mini-series for the small screen in two parts – each lasting 1h30. The show was hugely successful and was later released as a videotape to video stores (as a feature film – as well as many of King’s works, see It – A Masterpiece of Fear, Tommyknockers and The Stand). The second version then takes on the air of a film production. But instead of re-adapting the author’s original book, Warner decided to make an unreleased sequel to King’s story in 1987. Eventually, the story would get a remake, still as a miniseries in two episodes, in 2004. .

Writer Ben Mears (David Soul) is the hero of Stephen King’s terrifying vampire story.

The fact is curious, since the first three books by Stephen King have been adapted in chronological order for audiovisual, with Carrie – The Strange written in 1974 (released in theaters in 1976 by Brian De Palma), The Vampires of Salem was written in 1975 (brought to the screen as this miniseries in 1979) and The Shining was written in 1977 (made into the cult classic Stanley Kubrick in 1980). So, with Carrie and The Shining standing the test of time, ever-famous, of the original triplet, only The Vampires of Salem have been left with a small piece of the cake this whole time, out of the hype that King usually works . have. And it would really be over 40 years before the story got its first big-screen treatment. But the first version of The Vampires of Salem is not a disposable work, even with the constraints of a small budget and the derogatory aura that television productions carried. On the contrary, even more at the time, the mini-series was so successful when it was exhibited on the CBS network in mid-November 1979 that, in addition to being repackaged into a feature film for cinematographic exploitation in some European countries, she aroused the interest of the American channel by turning the story into a regular series. Unfortunately, the idea did not work.

One of the most unsettling moments in the plot is when the little boy is turned into a vampire and appears at the window.

The big challenge the new version of The Vampires of Salem will face is to set itself apart from what fans and critics consider to be the best on-screen adaptation of The Vampires of Salem to date: the Netflix miniseries in seven episodes, Missa da Meia. Night (2021). Created by Mike Flanagan (with script and direction), the filmmaker uses Stephen King’s book as a big source of inspiration for his hit show. And so close, the series sounds like a version of the author’s work. The big difference is perhaps the use of blind faith and the critique of religious fanaticism – elements absent from the original work.

The Story of the Vampires of Salem also tells the story of a small town terrorized by the arrival of a creature from darkness, a vampire who begins to turn all the inhabitants into undead or use them for food. We also have as a protagonist a former resident of the place who returns after a few years, only to notice that his hometown is in immense danger, having to save the day. In Flanagan’s series (which had already adapted Stephen King for the screen, with Doctor Sleep), the subplot involving the return of the outsider takes unexpected turns, which makes everything more interesting. Apart from this, the creature of darkness is also brought in by a man inserted into the community. In Midnight Mass he is the local priest and in The Vampires of Salem the respectable owner of a rare antique shop.

The inhabitants of the small town of Salem’s Lot begin to turn into vampires.

Mike Flanagan even chose to use the sub-human look of the vampire from the Vampires of Salem (1979) miniseries – a monstrous version à la Nosferatu. But in Stephen King’s original book, the vampire known as Kurt Barlow looks like Dracula, an antagonist who talks and looks human. King, who often gets in trouble with these sudden changes in his stories, even came to terms with the fact that in 1979 Barlow now looks creepier and doesn’t talk. For the author, this would make viewers more invested in the personal dramas of the other characters. We will see which appearance of the vampire the creators of this new 2022 version will use. In particular, I hope they will follow Flanagan’s path for greater audience impact.

Have fun watching:

Vampires of Salem (1979) chronicles the journey of Ben Mears (David Soul), a writer who, back in his hometown of Salem’s Lot, begins to unravel strange occurrences, such as disappearances, deaths, and unexplained phenomena. Gradually, the subject begins to connect the dots, though most are skeptical. He manages to recruit a few of them to help him, like Susan Norton (Bonnie Bedelia), his lover, and his father, the town doctor, Dr. Bill Norton (Ed Flanders). The terror begins with a stranger moving into the small square. Richard Straker is at first glance just a businessman, owner of an antique shop, with strange habits. He claims to be the partner of a certain Barlow, whom we never see. Straker is actually Barlow’s minion, and he takes kills to keep the creature alive. Thus, they continue to move and decimate small villages. As Straker, the biggest name in the cast: James Mason, Professor Humbert Humbert, from the classic Lolita (1962).

Kurt Barlow is the main antagonist of the story: an ancient vampire brought in to terrorize a sleepy little town.

Oh yes. By now I should have mentioned that the Vampires of Salem miniseries also has illustrious direction from a true master of the genre. The director for both episodes is Tobe Hooper, chosen by producer Richard Kobritz after the success of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974). But the plans weren’t always to bring the story to television. It all actually started with the intention of bringing The Vampires of Salem to the big screen, along with the Carrie Brothers and The Shining. Even director George A. Romero of Night of the Living Dead (1968) was willing to take over Warner’s film production. Imagine what it would have been like. But what has happened is an accumulation of stylish vampire-focused horror movies, all released in the same year. 1979 saw, for example, the premiere of the remake of Dracula starring Frank Langella, directed by John Badham, as well as the remake of Nosferatu: The Night Vampire by Werner Herzog. So Warner took the field crew and ended up going TV. With the maneuver, the studio ended up losing Romero, who felt his vision couldn’t be contained on the small screen.

Stephen King’s inspiration for writing the story is even said to come from Bram Stoker’s classic book, Dracula. The author has always been fascinated by this plot and wondered what it would be like if a vampire the size of Dracula moved to a small American town these days – in this case, times 1979. This time difference will be very probably overcome in the new film – which should be set in the present day, with internet and smartphones.

By analyzing the mini-series with regard to today’s standards, we notice the somewhat “romantic” atmosphere of the story, favored by a veritable multitude of characters created by King to populate the city of the title. The three-hour miniseries (or TV movie, depending on how you watch it) seems like little to sidestep so many subplots. And some end up with no clear conclusion, like the couple played by George Dzundza and Julie Cobb – an adulterous wife whose betrayed husband catches her in the act. The duo simply disappear without further explanation. In fact, the intention of the producers was to focus more on the characters and their dramas than on terror and violence. So the mood in the end result is very much that of a soap opera. But the production still reserves scary moments. Like Barlow’s appearances, many served up harrowing jumpscares (the famous frights) – including a scene at the Petrie family residence (whose youngest son Mark becomes one of the story’s heroes, thanks to his taste for monsters), which marks the first appearance of the vampire; and a scene in the jail where he arrives to suck the blood of Ned Tebbets (Barney McFadden), the local troublemaker.

The gore is so reduced that Reggie Nalder, the exotic-looking actor who plays Barlow, was disappointed with the outcome of what he saw on screen – having much of his role in the work reduced to less than 1.5 minutes of screen time, as the main plot threat. The actor even saw his name removed from the credits. Certainly the approach will be completely different in the upcoming adaptation, which already leaves us very curious for the first glimpses of this new (and old) world created by Stephen King.

Don’t forget to watch: