Are You with Us? Interview with a Vampire
By Ryan Mazie
November 5, 2012
BoxOfficeProphets.com
I never saw Interview with the Vampire before, expecting the film to be more or less a gothic horror picture. However, I was surprised by how much of a dark, epic drama the film was, spanning over roughly 200 years.
Based off of the titular 350-some-page book by Anne Rice (who also wrote the screenplay alongside director Neil Jordan (whose writing remained without credit)), Interview tells a lot, but shows a little. Pitt acts as the film’s narrator, Louis de Pointe du Lac, a New Orleans plantation owner turned vampire, spilling out his life story to a reporter (Christian Slater) in the present day. Director Jordan (The Crying Game, The Brave One) manages to cut corners by intercutting the interview scenes to speed up the storytelling process for better (in terms of background history) and worse (in terms of skimming over plot points that are sometimes more interesting than what is shown expansively).
Grieving the death of his wife and infant, Louis allows the seductive vampire Lestat (Tom Cruise) to give him immortality and become a vampire. Little does he know what a sad life nightwalkers lead (or at least the ones who don’t have a penchant for killing).
With the interesting dilemma if it is better to kill or to die, Interview with the Vampire waxes too much philosophy to be subtle. Rice writes her screenplay in poetry over prose, which further removed the characters from reality in an already outlandish tale. I was immediately engrossed into the world of the vampire, but felt emotionally distant.
The sets are stunning and elegant and frequently changing to the time period. The costumes are also ornate and the make-up is detailed (the actors were reportedly hung upside down so the blood could rush to their head so they could make their blood vessels pop through their vampire translucent skin). However, unlike a Tim Burton movie, the Gothicism doesn’t overtake the actors and become the central focus of the film.
Anne Rice was vocal about her distaste for having Tom Cruise cast as Lestat (who I was surprised to see had a much smaller role than advertised). She later ate her words, commending him on a wonderful performance. I agree. Cruise plays Lestat with a carnivore versus prey mentality, swooping in and then pouncing on his victims. Gleefully manic, Cruise makes the film pop. Unfortunately, he is not in it nearly enough time.
Unlike the down and dirty True Blood, Interview depicts the life of being a vampire as horrid. Lestat is the only character in the whole film who manages to still carry a smile, enjoying the game he plays of seducing and then biting down on human flesh.
Kirsten Dunst in her first major role is also a standout as the “adopted by vampire bite” daughter of Lestat and Louis who is faced to spend eternity in her girlhood body. Given the challenge to act decades old at such a young age, Dunst speaks with intelligence and grace, wowing me with her aplomb, being 11 or 12 years old at the time of shooting.
If there is any weak spot, the title of dishonor belongs to Pitt. There are parts where his character’s solemn nature just seemed due to lazy acting. Pitt in a later interview expressed his dissatisfaction being on-set and even tried to seek a way out once filming began. His disinterest unfortunately translates on screen here and there.
Obviously the cast continued to have stunning careers, each starring in some of the biggest blockbuster franchises of all time. Director Neil Jordan continues to make films (all much smaller and none particularly successful at the box office) and Anne Rice’s writing career hit an even higher stratosphere of book sales. Unfortunately the Vampire Chronicles franchise hit a standstill. While successful, a sequel never got off the ground immediately (but to be fair, Rice’s screenplay for Interview was floating around since the ‘70s before finally hitting theaters in ’94). With the film rights about to revert back to Rice, Warner Bros. made a slapdash sequel (combining the second and third books of the series into one movie), Queen of the Damned, which was a critical and box office flop that Rice disowned.
Released November 11, 1994, Vampire sucked an impressive $36.4 million from audiences (the highest opening weekend for any film in 1994 – especially impressive given its R-rating). However, the dark nature during the Holiday season made the film crumble, wrapping up with a $105.3 million total ($202 million today) with an additional $118.4 million from overseas, against a $60 million budget. The surprising lack of award nominations the film received also probably played a factor.
Critics were divided on the film, ranking at 60% on Rotten Tomatoes (and sits at an even lower 40% among top critics). Much of the criticism is directed at the story itself. I can agree that at times the interest wanes, but the acting and the visuals kept me captivated to get over the hump until Louis’ story moves on to the next decade.
Christian Slater is given little to do besides sit and listen to Pitt’s monologue of a story, and I feel like that was a missed opportunity. Being a reporter, if he could ask a question, it could keep the story on a narrower track. Slater is the agent for the audience while Pitt is the person allowing us to enter the unknown world of vampires for reasons that seem superficial and unsatisfying.
The best praise I can give the film is that it has a unique identity that is still different from the dark-yet-fun vampire tales that we are used to seeing nowadays. Jordan makes the film stay true to its solemn tone, and makes it come off as cold as the vampire’s dead bones. While a dividing choice, it is a firm one.
Less of an interview and more of a poetic monologue, Anne Rice’s literary sensation is given an honorable translation to the big screen that is still an entertaining study. Bloody, but still beating, Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles has bite, but could sharpen its fangs.
Verdict: With Us
8 out of 10