Write it When I'm Gone: Remarkable Off the Record Conversations with Gerald Ford by Thomas DeFrank

Write it When I'm Gone: Remarkable Off the Record Conversations with Gerald Ford
by Thomas DeFrank

This is a book for which I waited for many years. My fascination with Gerald Ford and his presidency is documented in my earlier review of his autobiography on this blog.

I am an unapologetic admirer of Gerald Ford. This man was thrust into the most difficult job in the world under the most trying of circumstances. Furthermore, it was not a job he sought, nor was elected. His courage, his patriotism, and sense of duty were all that Americans could and should expect in a president. Yet, when the time came for him to seek affirmation and elect him to a full term in his own right, we, as Americans, rejected him.

The conversations in this book took place over a thirty year period with journalist Thomas M. DeFrank. Ford made an uncharacteristically glib comment about the state of the Nixon presidency when he was vice president. Ford was able to talk DeFrank out of publishing the statement, thus earning Ford's unguarded trust for many years. Ford's condition was that his comments not be published until after his death.

No politician or president so carefully guarded his own opinions as Gerald Ford. Some regarded him as intellectually over matched by the presidency. Many believed that he and Richard Nixon had cut a deal for the pardon. His ambiguous relationship with former presidents Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter have been a mystery to historians. Now, we know the truth about all those things.

Ford was not a Reagan fan. He believed that it was Reagan who cost him the 1976 election. It was not just the primary election challenge. In his convention speech, Reagan played to his supporters and made little mention of Ford. On the campaign trail, Reagan was virtually absent in his support of Ford. While the dumping of Nelson Rockefeller and the addition of Bob Dole to the ticket helped with the Republican base, a strong show of support from Reagan would have solidified it.

Ford also felt that he should have been anointed the nominee to run against Carter in 1980. With Nixon politically destroyed, Ford was the party’s elder statesman and as such felt that the Republicans should have come to him first. Unlike Reagan, Ford was unwilling to divide the party and quietly withdrew his name from consideration before the public even knew he was contemplating a run.

Ford thought that Reagan was hopelessly naive and intellectually lazy. He thought his world view was dangerous. However, history would not bear out Ford's conception.

The two never did bury the hatchet as was reported in the media. Ford discusses in great detail the Reagan overture to Ford to join him on the 1980 Republican ticket. Ford was a pipe smoker. To broach the subject, Reagan showed up in the Ford suite at the convention with an expensive Dunhill pipe that Reagan called a "peace pipe". Ford, however, imposed conditions on his vice presidency that he knew would be poison pills for Reagan. He essentially proposed a co-presidency that would make Ford the leader of the country on certain issues. Reagan refused to accept. Ford claims that he made the offer knowing that Reagan would reject it.

The Nixon-Ford relationship has been dissected by historians since the days of Watergate. What Ford finally admits is that a large part of the impetus for the pardon was humanitarian. Ford was receiving reports from San Clemente that Nixon's despondency had put him in a suicidal state. Nixon's near-death crisis with phlebitis alarmed Ford. To spare Nixon's further humiliation and possibly his life, Ford pardoned him and wrecked his own career in the process.

Ford reflects on Nixon as a personally misunderstood man. He genuinely liked Nixon and thought he was warm and engaging. He recounts how he, Nixon, and Carter were on a flight to Israel for the funeral of Anwar Sadat. A flight attendant asked if she could have her picture taken with the three former presidents. He remarked that Nixon was eager to do it. It was Jimmy Carter who pitched a fuss before reluctantly posing.

Ford doesn't entirely spare Nixon. Some anger remains for Nixon's deception of him and the entire country about his culpability in Watergate. Ford staked a great deal of his credibility on Nixon's claims of innocence. Ford believed in him. When Nixon's duplicity was exposed, Ford was put in an awkward position of having to back away from earlier statements but having to continue to support Nixon right up to his resignation.

Ford's attitudes about Carter are remarkable. For many years, Ford was angry with Carter for statements that were made during the 1976 campaign. He also talked about how cold the man was in their meeting at the White House on inauguration day. However, the two talked a great deal near the end of Carter's presidency and afterward and Ford came to respect the man's intellect.

Ford is quite hard on his biological father, who his mother divorced when Gerald Ford was a young Leslie King, Jr. He had one meeting with the elder King when he was in college and came away from the encounter bitter. Some of this bitterness leaks into his otherwise vanilla memoirs. That genuine lack of respect and dislike is at the forefront of his recounting for DeFrank.

DeFrank recounts Ford's final days for us. He was wan at the Reagan funeral and made no public statements, indicating his mental faculties were slipping. While he never suffered from dementia, Ford's final days were full of lost memories and confusion.

With the publication of this book, we finally get to know the man who led this country through the most political tumultuous times of the 20th century. He had greater intellect than we ever knew. He had greater passions than we ever knew, and he was a better man than we ever knew. Ford will never get the credit he deserves in history for his quiet, competent leadership in a time of world crises and political instability.

Book to Movie: The Stand (1994)

The Stand
Miniseries made for television
Original air date: May 8, 1994

In the early and mid 90s, mini-series based on Stephen King works became an industry for ABC television. Between 1990 and 1995, ABC cranked out mini-series based on IT, Sometimes They Come Back, Golden Years, The Tommyknockers, The Stand, and The Langoliers. Some were good and some inferior.

In 1994, ABC aired The Stand in a four part mini-series over four nights. This would be an easy book to make into a very bad movie. Hollywood could have taken the barest elements of the story and dressed it up in special effects and makeup, as they were wont to do even in an era before computer generated effects. Instead, they did a good job of casting, used a script that held true to the novel, cast it well, and turned out a decent small screen version of King’s apocalyptic novel.

The screenplay eliminates none of the story’s elements. It only abbreviates them much as King’s editors abbreviated them from his original manuscript. Gone in the screenplay is the Trash Can Man’s trip across the desert and his encounter with The Kid. Gone is Nick and Tom Cullen’s encounter with the tornado and gone is the tragic character of Rita who would die after leaving New York City with Larry Underwood. Her pill popping vice and neurotic behavior is transferred into Nadine in a character amalgamation that is about 90 percent Nadine and ten percent Rita.

It is the introspection that develops each character so well in the novel as they march across the landscape of ruined America in search of a purpose in the immediate aftermath of the superflu. That introspection is not in the movie. Trash Can Man’s tortured walking day dreams are still there, but are tacked on and, unless you have read the novel, don’t make much sense. The dreams of Randall Flagg and Mother Abigail serve to set the tone of morality in the novel. On screen, it’s impossible to develop the dreams into anything tangible. Such are the shortcomings of celluloid.

All of the story’s best scenes are incorporated in the show and none of them are botched. Larry’s slow, ponderous crawl through the Lincoln Tunnel is well written and well shot, but still falls far short of the reading experience. This scene demonstrates best how film often comes up so short when interpreting Stephen King material. It is not what Larry sees in the tunnel that is terrifying. It is not what happens to him. It is what he thinks he sees and what he thinks is going to happen to him. An interior dialogue tacked on to the scene would have made it foolish. There was no way for Mick Garris to pull this off, but we can give him credit for knowing it and not making it worse by trying to make it better.

Although not nearly as dramatic as Larry’s escape through the Lincoln Tunnel, Stuart Redman’s escape from the Stovington Center for Disease Control is another riveting scene in the book. This transfers much better to film. Knowing the jig is up, Stuart overpowers the man sent to kill him. He encounters dozens of dead medical and administrative personnel in the hallways after being locked up for a month. As he searches frantically for an exit, on the brink of panic, he is accosted by the demented and nearly dead. Director Mick Garris deserves kudos for the pacing of this scene which accurately depicts the panic. The viewer almost holds his breath as Redman, played by Gary Sinise, makes his last dash toward the exit to find the ghost town formerly known as Stovington.

Garris relied very little on animated or computer generated special effects. Only at the end, as the two remaining heroes make their stand, do special effects come into play. Garris does the best job possible in bringing to film the hand of God as a special effect, but if falls far short of the novel as King describes death by fire as prophesized in Revelations.

Garris enlisted a few top notch actors and a capable list of unknowns to bring the script to life. Gary Sinise is perfect as the east Texas factory worker, Stuart Redman. Sinise was at the top of his game as an actor then – fresh off of his performance in Forrest Gump and preparing to make Apollo 13. Sinise’s average looks, slow speech, and unpretentious bearing are very close the character I envisioned as Stuart Redman.

As I read the novel, I never envisioned Frannie Goldsmith anything like Molly Ringwald. This is a role that is truly miscast. Although she was 26 at the time, that adolescent whining she did so well in the 1980s is pervasive in a character who is supposed to be more mature. Frances Goldsmith, in the novel was anything but whining. She was not brash or demonstrative, but she was stubborn, decisive, and insightful. The character portrayed by Ringwald is a whining observer of others. Ringwald does a marginal job of acting with a marginally written character.

Rob Lowe -- like Ringwald, a brat packer of the 1980s -- is cast as Nick Andros. Playing a deaf mute, Lowe obviously has to work hard to develop the Andros character on film without any dialogue. His performance might be the strongest of the cast. Lowe is a little older than the Nick Andros of the novel, but aptly conveys the cynicism combined with innate goodness that King authored.

Bill Faggerbake, known best to children as the voice of Patrick Star on Spongebob Squarepants and to adults as Dauber Daubinski, was born to play Tom Cullen. His huge stature, combined with his innocent, boyish facial features and mop of blond hair give him the tools to play a mentally challenged character. His baritone voice, ability to portray juvenile characters, and strong direction help Faggerbakke develop Tom Cullen as fully on television as he was developed in the novel.

True to his character, King did not gift Cullen with great insight into his own character or nature. He thought simply, acted simply, and reacted to events around him. Tom Cullen is not developed through introspection, but through deeds. Garris stays true to this and serves the story well.

Adam Storke portrays Larry Underwood – the narcissistic and self loathing rock star. King once wrote that he’d like to see Bruce Springsteen cast as Larry Underwood. Alas, The Boss is too old and is a rock and roll icon. It would be impossible to imagine him as a would be rocker who sold out to pop to make some easy cash. Storke’s body of work in Hollywood is limited to just a few roles – none of which I’ve ever seen. He is well cast here and carries off Larry Underwood’s dramatic character arc seamlessly.

Randall Flagg had to have been the most difficult character to cast. Flagg is beguiling, charming, and affectionate while his nature is evil, cruel, and antagonistic. He is portrayed by Jamey Sheridan. Sheridan has an impressive television resume and is best known as portraying Captain James Deakins on NBC’s Law and Order: Criminal Intent. Far from looking like a cop, Sheridan has the countenance of an graying 60s radical. His long, stringy hair and faded denim jacket are exactly what is depicted by King. Sheridan is charming enough when Flagg must charm. However, his rage is usually depicted through animation and makeup – and not particularly well. Sheridan did the best he could while producers and graphic artists fudged the rest.

Occasionally, a director will find a way to improve upon what is in the novel and make it work on television or the big screen. This was certainly the case with Stanley Kubrick’s interpretation of The Shining. The novel is ranks among the finest of King’s work and it probably could not be improved upon as a book. Kubrick worked his magic and took scenes that just wouldn’t work on the big screen and rewrote them for his medium, making a better movie than a straight retelling of the book.

Garris, unfortunately, doesn’t go that direction. His is a straight, although abridged, rendering of the King text. Perhaps a little more imagination on Garris’ part would have made the stand in Las Vegas more meaningful. Admittedly, the hand of God is hard to top. But if you can’t pull it off on screen with the majesty it deserves near the end of an 1100 page novel or eight hour made for television miniseries, find another way to do it.

The miniseries is The Stand in a vacuum. We are given no insight into Flagg’s link to the master of the Dark Tower or the evil wrought by him in other worlds.

While it will never rank among the best or most important of King works on screen, it is better than most of his work that was made for television.

The Stand by Stephen King

The Stand: Complete and Uncut
by Stephen King
Copyright 1990

The Stand was originally published in 1978 as Stephen King’s fourth novel. In its original format, it was approximately 700 pages. In 1990, King published The Stand with an additional 300 pages added – replacing much of what his editors excised. The book became a whopping 1150 page epic saga of dark Christianity and the fall of man.

Much of what was added improved the book. It added depth to the characters – particularly to the man known as “The Trashcan Man.”

The tale is set in 1990 when a superflu virus concocted by the U.S. military escapes an Army base. A lone guard managed to take his family and flee the base located in a Nevada desert, eventually ending up in the east Texas village of Arnette. With his family dead and him dying, that guard started the process that would doom American civilization and more than 2/3 of mankind.

Soon, the superflu – known as “Captain Trips” – spreads across the nation and killing all who contract it. Men turn on men. Civilization and government break down. Cities fall into chaos. And eventually, there are just a few who, for unknown reasons, have a natural immunity and survive.

Those left alive begin randomly journeying across the country. Each has strange, but identical dreams. They dream of an ancient black woman living in the fields of Nebraska who beckons them to come to her. Another dream, much darker and sinister, is of a dark man with no face, who stalks them.

Eventually, several of the survivors meet up. Those of good disposition seek out the aforementioned black woman – Mother Abigail Freemantle in Hemmingford Home, Nebraska. Others are drawn to the Dark Man – Randall Flagg – setting up shop in Nebraska.

The good guys eventually settle in Boulder, Colorado while Flagg and his legions re-establish Sin City. Flagg’s plan is world domination and unleashing evil. Mother Abigail’s plan is God’s will. Eventually, four of Mother Abigail’s followers travel to Las Vegas to make their Stand against Flagg and the forces of evil.

It’s difficult to write an objective criticism of your all time favorite book. Post apocalyptic fiction is my favorite thing to read and while some books have come close, such as Richard Matheson’s I Am Legend and Robert McCammon’s Swan Song, The Stand stands above the rest.

What sends The Stand above and beyond the others is the deconstruction of society that unfolds in the first third of the book. In Matheson’s tale, some of that deconstruction is told in flashback. In Swan Song, society is wiped out in an instant by a nuclear blast. King’s book starts with men lazing about a small town Texas gas station. As the flu spreads, we read as Americans first become suspicious that what is happening is more than your average flu epidemic. That suspicion turns into fear as the Army begins quarantining cities and killing those who resist. Finally, with their ranks decimated by the flu, the military gives way to the mobs who also eventually succumb to the virus.

Another striking difference in The Stand versus other post-apocalyptic fiction is the quiet beauty of the post-apocalyptic world. McCammon’s world is scorched. Matheson’s is haunted. Cormac McCarthy paints an even bleaker picture in his book, The Road where the world is dead and covered in gray ash.

King’s world after the fall of man is tranquil. Machines are silenced. Nature and her creatures reign supreme. It is pastoral rather than frightening. This increases the effectiveness of King’s story. It is not the setting that is disturbing – but the story itself.

As stated earlier, this is a book of dark Christianity. Effectively, King never references Revelations where many have interpreted various ways the doom of man. His Christian references are more about the nature of God and God’s demands of man mostly found in the Old Testament. It is also found in the contrast of good and evil. Mother Abigail is mortal. She is frail and old. She exhibits no superhuman strength or ability. She is able to rally those who flock to her simply because people have faith in her – even if they don’t necessarily have faith in the God of Abraham.

Flagg, on the other hand, is definitely supernatural. He has the power to take on other forms such as wolves and crows. He can levitate. He can transmute objects and he see events unfold at great distances. He is not Satan. It is not explicitly stated, but I don’t believe he is supposed to be one of Satan’s minions. Rather, I saw him as a supernatural being perhaps trying to gain Satan’s favor. While the Christian God is frequently referenced by Mother Abigail as the source of her leadership, Flagg never acknowledges a higher power.

The characters in The Stand are perhaps the strongest King ever developed. King acknowledges this a bit in the foreword to the new edition when he states that people frequently ask him whatever happened to various individuals from the novel. King humorously suggests that people think he gets regular letters from them.

What makes these characters so dynamic is the dramatic transformation each undergoes. This is difficult for a writer. If a character is abruptly transformed from average Joe into a superhero, the reader feels cheated. If the character is transformed over time, but carries forward with him none of the essence of who he was, the reader feels cheated. Each of King’s heroes and antagonists is dramatically transformed while never losing their essence.

Witness Stuart Redman of Arnette, Texas. He’s an everyman. He is a single white male factory worker living in a slightly depressed southern town. His thoughts are simple. His reasoning simple. He has the wisdom that comes from age and living in hard times, but is gifted with know great knowledge or insight. Yet, his heroic struggle to escape the Center for Disease Control in Stovington, Vermont as the plague is just finishing chewing on mankind is riveting and heroic. His leadership skills develop as he leads a group from New England to Colorado develop to a point where he is eventually placed at the leadership of the Boulder community.

Larry Underwood, narcissistic rock star whose greatest pastime is self-indulgence is transformed into a man willing to make great sacrifices. He is transformed first by the death of his mother of the flu, then the death of a traveling companion as he leaves New York City. Even as Larry emerges as a hero, he is riddled by self-doubt and just a hint of self-loathing, recognizing his character flaws and striving against them. It is he who leads the way to man’s salvation in Las Vegas.

On the dark side, there is Lloyd Heinreid. Lloyd is a small time punk who graduates to maniacal unpremeditated murder in the early days of the superflu as he and his killing mate go on a killing and robbery spree across the American west.

While society, fades, Lloyd finds himself in prison for murder. He is left there to starve as there is no one left to feed or care for him. The Dark Man comes to his rescue and secures the promise of fealty in exchange for his release. Lloyd gives Flagg more than fealty. He develops the leadership skills to become the chief administrator in Flagg’s highly ordered Las Vegas society. He is also transformed from mindless and simple to efficient and effective.

Then there is Harold Lauder, who is the most conflicted character in the book. He is an overweight, unattractive, insecure adolescent in love with another survivor from his Maine hometown. In society, he is the target of bullies, the shame of his parents, and the object of no one’s affection. He sees an opportunity to perhaps change all that when the society he scorned and scorned him falls to the wayside.

What is remarkable about Lauder’s transformation is that it is dramatic only superficially while he remains the same bitter, socially disenfranchised adolescent on the inside. He develops into a glad handler -- always willing to pitch in and help in Boulder with the most unpleasant tasks, such as the gathering and disposal of dead bodies. He outwardly surrenders the object of his affection to Stuart Redman while seething with jealousy and hate on the inside. The people of Boulder do not see him as an insecure adolescent spurned by the woman he loves, but as a strong and able man they call “Hawk.” Inwardly, however, Lauder’s insecurities keep him from joining society and lead him to his doom.

It is the strength of these characters and King's ability to make us care for even the most unsympathetic of them, that engages the reader.

No review of The Stand can be complete without at least a brief discussion of Larry Underwood’s flight from New York through the Lincoln Tunnel. King fans will tell you this is perhaps the most effective writing King has ever done. To reveal too much would be to spoil the effect for the reader, and I don’t like spoilers. Let it be said that Larry’s trip through Lincoln Tunnel, full of cars packed with rotting corpses, is the 20 most terrifying pages I’ve ever read. To the intellectual snobs who dismiss King as a purveyor of genre slop, I invite them to find anything in Poe or Lovecraft as compelling or terrifying.

The Stand is a prequel to The Dark Tower. It is never explicitly stated, but Roland Duschaine’s world is the United States, hundreds if not thousands of years after The Stand. The remnants of society as we know it are found there. We know man did not advance much technologically after the The Stand. There are peculiarities that demonstrate that the events in The Stand sent mankind in a much different direction than he was originally headed and dramatically impacted Mother Nature as well.

Believe it or not, the end of The Stand strikes a somewhat positive note. After the stand in Las Vegas, our heroes are hopeful and looking forward to a future that they are confident they can build without the evils of the past such as genetically engineered flu bugs. What transpires between The Stand and the first book of the Dark Tower series, The Gunslinger, King never tells us. But we can be sure it was not positive.

The supernatural being that he is, we can also count on the return of Randall Flagg, aka the Dark Man. His being and his nature are revealing of the essence of the object of Roland’s quest.

The Stand is revered by many King fans – including me – as his finest work. His deconstruction and reconstruction of society is unparalleled by any work of fiction I’ve ever encountered. This is his finest story, populated by his finest characters and well worth the many hours it will take to complete reading it. While it is the most integral of his stand alone novels to the Dark Tower saga, it stands alone as a great novel as well.

The Stand was made into a two part, made for television mini-series as well, starring Gary Sinise, Molly Ringwald, and many others. One would think that any television adaptation of King’s greatest work would fall tremendously short (as so many other adaptations of good King stories have). It is not nearly as satisfying as the novel, but does not fall down as badly as one might think.

Book to Movie: 'Salem's Lot (2004)

‘Salem’s Lot
Book to Movie
2004 made for television
Directed by Mikael Salamon

In 2004, ‘Salem’s Lot was updated for television. This time the director was Mikael Salamon. The tale is updated from King’s 1970s New England to the modern Maine in the 21st century.

The departure from the book in the 2004 version is early and apparent in the opening scene. A disheveled and aged Ben Mears – played by Rob Lowe – attacks Father Callahan in a New York soup kitchen – months or years after the fall of ‘Salem’s Lot. I can’t help but believe this was written into the stories to strengthen the Father Callahan character to bolster the Dark Tower books which were being released at a rate of one a year at that time.

The 2004 telling of “Salem’s Lot is not a straight retelling of the book and differs from its 1979 predecessor in almost every way imaginable.

The most tangible of these differences is the ‘Salem’s Lot of 2004 is very much different in appearance and zeitgeist. In the book and the earlier celluloid version, ‘Salem’s Lot starts out as a customarily insular bedroom community. There are all of the traditional sins in place such as adultery and alcoholism in its earlier incarnations. The later version adds vengeful landlords, a deceitful seductress and corrupts the real estate agent Larry Crockett from a mild opportunist into a willfully devious character in both his business and personal conduct. It’s much harder to sympathize with this town than the slightly more idealistic 1970s version (and its hard to idealize anything from the 1970s)

As someone commented on my 1979 review, the fact that the vampire Barlow was invited to the town is addressed in the modern version. In 2004, it’s Larry Crockett’s willingness to embrace a to good to be true land deal where he trades the virtually worthless Marsten house for very lucrative commercial property. Thus, Barlow arrived in ‘Salem’s Lot – a very important point in traditional vampire lore.

There are fundamental alterations to the character of Ben Mears that detract from character in the book. In this version, instead of entering the Marsten house and seeing a vision of Marsten hanging from his rafters, it is a young Ben Mears that actually finds the body of Marsten and his wife – along with that of a young boy who had been killed and sadistically murdered.

This detracts because it destroys the anonymity of Ben Mears as he entered town. He was a semi-successful writer and people in the Lot knew he had once lived there. But nobody knew him personally. Only Susan Norton recognized him on sight and that was because Mears made a point of talking to her when he observed her reading one of his books. In 2004, he is recognized by everyone who found Hubbie Marsten’s body.

Another fundamental change in Mears is his profession. In the book, he is a writer of western and mainstream fiction. In the 1979 version, we only know that he wrote novels without a clue as to what kind. In 2004, he is a journalist who had served in Iraq. While there, he was taken prisoner and eventually rescued by soldiers. Upon returning to the states, he authored a book about his rescue that implicated his rescuers in several crimes against humanity.

Instead of a emotionally shattered, anonymous writer recovering from the accidental death of his wife, Rob Lowe portrays this leftist, anti-war, anti-hero who has earned the scorn of a great deal of the country. Like the modern village of ‘Salem’s Lot, this Ben Mears is a lot harder to root for.

Straker is portrayed by Donald Sutherland. Sutherland’s portrayal of the Renfield-type character is too menacing. He’s passionately evil where the character in the book is cold and detached in his evil. Like the rest of what is an all star cast, Sutherland does the best he can with a bad script.

Mark Petrie is given the same kind of treatment as Ben Mears. Instead of the quiet, reserved loner, Petrie is portrayed as a small time, adolescent punk, pulling mean spirited pranks and petty acts of vandalism. It’s as if screenwriter Peter Filardi is deliberately populating the Lot with characters we wouldn’t mid see dying. That’s the recipe for a B-slasher movie – not a retelling of a highly respected horror novel.

Casting Rutger Hauer as the vampire Barlow is the most revolting development in the modernization. The novel portrayed Barlow as the traditional vampire – evil, but suave and refined in his demeanor. Rutger Hauer seems to be styled more after Randall Flagg – the chief antagonist in The Stand. Hauer’s vampire is not fearsome, threatening, or menacing. He more closely resembles an undead creature undergoing a midlife crisis.

Matt Burke is changed from both versions – but for the better. Portrayed by Andre Braugher, Burke – a teacher – is intellectually stronger than the 1979 version. He’s given a contemporary makeover when the director cast him as black and gay, but in this case, it only adds to the strength of the character. He is apparently the only black man in town and probably the only uncloseted gay man in town. Yet, through his strength of character and moral fiber, he is respected in an otherwise insular society of small town New England.

Father Callahan appears much more prominently in the 2004 version and, as we learn in the very beginning, survived his encounter with Barlow and moves on to the very thing he resolved when seeking guidance and forgiveness – the God of the soup kitchen. He is ably portrayed by the Hollywood veteran James Cromwell. We know from the Dark Tower series that he goes on to survive Mears’ attack in New York to travel far into the future to join Roland’s band of misfits in their quest for the Dark Tower.

The strong acting in a weak script and the modernization of the cinematography save this from being a total disaster. It’s faster pace somewhat offsets the bastardization of its main characters.

It’s definitely not as entertaining as the 1979 telling, but it is different. It’s strengths don’t quite offset its weaknesses and pales in comparison to the original novel. However, as a stand alone movie, it is worth seeing once if you are a King fan.

Book to Movie: 'Salem's Lot (1979)

‘Salem’s Lot
Book to Movie
1979 made for television
Directed by Tobe Hooper

‘Salem’s Lot was the second Stephen King novel to make the transfer from print to celluloid. Carrie was the first in 1976.

Horror fans seem to hold this particular King adaptation in low regard. Perhaps it is the 1970s era, made for television production values. Perhaps it was the fact that David Soul of “Starsky and Hutch" fame played the lead. Given the cultural and technological limitations of the day, Tobe Hooper’s ‘Salem’s Lot captured the essence of the King novel.

When books are converted into movies, characters are often eliminated or amalgamated. This is necessary because a film must have a sharper focus and quicker pace than a book to keep the audience engaged. Books develop characters in a much stronger manner.

In the 1979 version, the important character of Dr. Jim Cody is amalgamated with Susan Norton’s father. The story is not well served by this. Dr. Cody was an especially important character in driving the plot as Ben Mears decides to confront the evil in ‘Salem’s Lot. Bill Norton, as Susan’s father, is essential in the development of Ben Mears as a gentleman. The combination weakens both elements.

Also weakened in the mini-series is the teacher, Matt Burke whose name is inexplicably changed to Jacob Burke – perhaps to give the character more intellectual heft. It is the Burke character that provides the intellectual underpinnings of the story in what is otherwise a tale of supernatural madness.

In 1979, Burke was played by a white, frail, Lew Ayres. He did the best he could with the script but was poorly cast. Much stronger in the role in 2004 was Andre Braugher. He was black and homosexual. Neither is a factor in the story, but strengthened the character to show that this black man was of strong enough character to be accepted and admired in a provincial New England town. As Rob Lowe pointed out in the narrated opening, his homosexual lifestyle was tolerated and unspoken of as long as it was practiced in Portland. Both factors made the character more interesting.

The much maligned David Soul was strong in the role of Ben Mears. Soul’s blond, feathered hair and Hollywood good looks were a dramatic departure from King’s depiction of Mears as a dark haired, average looking, silent type. Despite his pretty boy persona, Soul’s performance is serious and dark. His character and its development were played straight from the book and Soul gave Ben Mears all the heroic traits of a King lead.

Also strong in Tobe Hooper’s interpretation are the monsters Straker and Barlow. Straker, played by British character actor James Mason is unfailingly polite and courteous in his evil – like the King character. For all of Donald Sutherland’s strengths as an actor, his portrayal of Straker is somewhat maniacal and menacing.

In 2004, Barlow had the rugged, middle-aged good looks of Rutger Hauer. 1979’s monster was pure monster. We get brief glimpses of him and one full scene of his character as he’s killing Mark Petrie’s parents. He is a direct copy and perhaps homage to F.W. Murnau’s Graf Orlok from Nosferatu – the first vampire to ever grace a movie screen. This throwback to vampire film’s roots is much more terrifying.

Lance Kerwin’s appearance as Mark Petrie may be another drawback for serious horror fans. Kerwin is best remembered for his 70s teenie bopper role in "James at 15." Kerwin can be forgiven his work in that adolescent fluff for his portrayal as the last child standing in ‘Salem’s Lot is every bit as strong and dark as that of Soul’s.

The 1979 mini-series – character amalgamations aside – is a direct, if abridged, interpretation of the King novel. ‘Salem’s Lot is perhaps the first tale to transport the traditional vampire mythos to America didn’t need much refinement to make it a good move.

I prefer the 1979 version to the 2004 version because it was made in the 1970s. The book was written and set in the 1970s. It was in the 1970s that I first saw it. That was the decade of my childhood when imaginary scary things were much scarier. The technological and cultural refinements in the script (Straker telling the sheriff that most of their antique business was done over the Internet, for instance) that update the story for the 21st century do not serve the story.

But what of our all-important Father Callahan who will emerge in the telling of the Dark Tower story? In the move, we last see him confronting Barlow in the Petrie kitchen. His character is never given defined closure. However, the viewer can safely conclude he met his end which contradicts what we know of his story.

While the 1979 version did not serve the story of the Dark Tower, it is undoubtedly a worthy adaptation of the King novel and superior to its 2004 redux.