Rice on the film, Interview with the Vampire |
| (...cont.) ON TOM CRUISE: From the moment he appeared Tom was Lestat for me. He has the immense physical and moral presence; he was defiant and yet never without conscience; he was beautiful beyond description yet compelled to do cruel things. The sheer beauty of Tom was dazzling, but the polish of his acting, his flawless plunge into the Lestat persona, his ability to speak rather boldly poetic lines, and speak them with seeming ease and conviction were exhilarating and uplifting. The guy is great. I'm no good at modesty. I like to believe Tom's Lestat will be remembered the way Olivier's Hamlet is remembered. Others may play the role some day but no one will ever forget Tom's version of it. (Let me say here that anyone who thinks I did an "about face" on Tom just doesn't know the facts. My objections to his casting were based on familiarity with his work, which I loved. Many many great actors have been miscast in films and have failed to make it work. I don't have to mention them here. Why hurt anyone by mentioning the disaster of his career? But we've seen big stars stumble over and over when they attempt something beyond their reach. That Tom DID make Lestat work was something I could not see in a crystal ball. It's to his credit that he proved me wrong. But the general objections to the casting? They were made on solid ground. Enough on that subject. Tom is a great actor. Tom wants challenges. Tom has now transcended the label of biggest box office star in the world. He's better.) Favorite moments with Tom: Tom's initial attack on Louis, taking him up into the air, praised by Caryn James so well in the New York Times. Ah! An incredibly daring scene. The finest romantic scene in any film, and here please read the word romance as an old and venerable word for timeless artistic forms of poetry, novels and film. Romance is a divine word which has never really been denigrated by the drugstore novels with the swooning ladies on the cover. Romance will be with us for all time, If you want to know more about Romance, put on a video of THE FISHER KING and listen to Robin Williams describe the deeper meaning of romance to his newfound girlfriend. It's worth it, believe me. Back to Tom: other great moments. Tom's bedside seduction of the dying Louis, in which he offers Louis the Dark Gift. Once again, Tom gave Lestat the virility and the androgyny that made both him and the offer irresistible. He was near blinding. I would have accepted the Dark Gift from him then and there. Only an actor with complete confidence and conviction could have done that scene or any of the others. Tom's angry outburst in the face of Louis' repeated questions. His stride, his voice both loud and soft, his frustration, his obvious discomfort, and inner conflict. Once again, Tom took over the screen, the theatre, the mind of the viewer. Immense power. Tom riding his horse through the slaves' fire, and then turning the horse around so that he could face the suspicious mortals. That was on a par with Errol Flynn and Rudy Valentino. It was on a par with the opera greats who have played Mephistopheles. Only a genuine "star" can make a moment like that, and I'm as confused as to why...just as much as anyone in Hollywood. Let's close this one out with one word: Grand! (No, can't stop talking about it.) If I had to settle for one picture in this film, it would be that shot of Lestat on horseback looking back at the suspicious mortals. That was and is my hero. That was and is my man. Lestat just won't be afraid of anybody. He won't stand for it. He hates what he is as much as Louis, but he cannot do anything but move forward, attempt to make existence worth it, attempt to create. He knows the formula for success, and has no patience with the formula for failure. That's Lestat. Tom's rage and obvious pain in the scene with the bleeding wench and the coffin, one scene from the book which I did not include in my script. it was probably put in by Neil Jordan. If Tom had not given so much depth to this scene, it might have been unwatchable. His desperation, his vulnerability, made it work, and he made himself in it the worthy object of compassion. No small feat! I found the scene, otherwise, to be disgusting. The shot of Tom looking through the green shutters, and the falling rain, knowing that Louis is somewhere out in the night. This was a gorgeous and eloquent shot. Again, it was the actor who gave it the depth in all the subtle ways that only he can do. Tom's making of Claudia, and here I want to praise the entire trio...Tom, Kirsten, Brad... The scene is directed delicately and captures the intimacy, the blasphemy and the undeniable innocence and blundering of the human who has a supernatural gift to give and in his pain and confusion, chooses to give it, come what may. That's a scene for now, for our world of scientific and medical miracles, as much as any scene in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and Tom pulled it off right to the last second. Later, Tom's confusion when after bringing Claudia a doll, he sees Claudia turn on him. About half of what I wrote for this scene in the script, or less, made it into the film, and I liked what I saw very much. I wish they'd gone on with the version of this scene that is in QUEEN OF THE DAMNED (see Jesse's discovery of Claudia's diary, and the entry describing what happened), but alas, what they did was great. Tom's manner and expression on the dangerous night that Claudia comes to him and offers him her "reconciling gift." Close in on those two at the harpsichord. Tom is seated, I believe. Kirsten is behind him and apparently offers him the acceptance he needs so desperately. Scenes like this, with Tom, make this film work. Every humorous scene Tom attempted was a complete success. The rat and the glass, I adored it. The humor added apparently by Neil Jordan -- the poodles, the piano teacher hitting the keyboard, the dressmaker biting the dust...well, I didn't adore all that, but Tom carried it off with true wit and style. And yes, its all right to laugh at those parts. We do every time we go to see the movie. There are many other great Tom Cruise moments throughout the film. Many. But these are the ones I cherish now. The readers calling me desperately want Tom to play THE VAMPIRE LESTAT. I hope he does. I hope I get to write the script for the movie. Tom's power, knowledge, skill, magnetism and artistic integrity are part and parcel of the success of IWTV, and there is no doubt that Tom would bring power and magic to TVL. (Let me digress again. For those of you who haven't read TVL, it is not really a sequel to IWTV. It's a complete full novel on its own, beginning the Vampire Chronicles. IWTV was the truly difficult film to make. TVL will take commitment, money and immense faith as well as talent, but compared to IWTV, it is much, much easier to film. Lestat is the true hero of TVL. He is entirely sympathetic. The trick, I think, will be achieving a texture in that film that includes all of Lestat's adventures...from the snows of the Auvergne, to the boulevards of Paris, through the sands of Egypt, and through the visit to Marius' sanctuary, and on to the twentieth century rock music stage. The tales of Armand and of Marius all also excursions for Lestat essentially. I hope Tom makes the journey.) One point: I am puzzled by what seems to be a discrepancy between the way Tom played Lest at, and the way my hero, Producer David Geffen, and others have described Lestat as a character. Did Tom on his own make this role a little bigger, brighter and more complex than anyone else realized it could be? I don't know. David Geffen called Lestat "nasty" when he was interviewed by Barbara Walters. Nasty? I don't get it. But David Geffen is my hero for getting this film made. No one else could have done it. So why quibble about what David said? There is one problem created by the compelling charm of Tom's performance, obviously. Since he isn't all that nasty, why does Louis hate Lestat? How can he? Well, I'll take that problem any day over a more shallow solution. Tom his the right note. And Louis was Louis. Nothing could comfort Louis. The film got it. ON KIRSTEN DUNST: Magnificent and flawless as Claudia, shocking in her soft, perfectly paced shifts between adulthood and childish innocence. The role as she played it is far less sinister than the Claudia of the book, and perhaps even a little more innocent then my first draft script. But the change seemed to work wondrously to deliver the heartbreak of Claudia's dilemma to the audience. She was a woman, but she was in a child's body. The actress showed incredible intelligence and cunning, and yet a child's tragic vulnerability and heartrending capacity to be disappointed. Anybody who doesn't see what this is about -- all women are locked in the bodies of dolls; all self contemplating human souls are locked in mortal and often confounding bodies -- isn't perhaps asking enough of himself or herself as a viewer. To say this film contained only one idea or no ideas as Janet Maslin said in the New York Times, is, I think to severely underrate it. The better part of the ideas of this film revolve around Claudia, and her dilemma is truly one shared by everyone. That the film arouses and sustains sympathy for her so that her inevitable fate is tragic is a great cinematic accomplishment. What Kirsten did in this film has dealt a body blow to the rigid, stupid cliche of the demonic child. Kirsten blew THE BAD SEED out of the water. She is utterly beyond the evil puppetlike child vampires of other movies. She drew us into her motives for violence and offered us a deeper understanding of all the moral rules given us, or created by us. That none of her gestures, words, or actions was prurient was a major achievement. Favorite moments with Kirsten: The entire transformation scene in the bed from suffering waif to glorious child killer. When she looks down from the balcony in the Rue Royale and says, ``It means...I shall never grow up.'' Her quiet voice in the scene where Lestat brings her the doll (again, about half of what I wrote survived there, maybe less, but I liked Jordan's changes except for one minor point which I'll make below.) Her seduction of Lestat and subsequent attack on him, especially the moment when she tumbles back on the couch next to the young boys and smiles up at Lestat. Perfection. Her loving and intimate scenes with Louis in which she becomes a woman, remaining both a daughter and a mother. The perfect pitch of prepubescent innocence throughout. The movie isn't about peephole sex, and nobody exemplifies that better than Claudia. It isn't about perversion at all. It never was. It is about the attempt of all of us to live in the light and with grace. Kirsten got the whole thing. Her final scene. Again, there are many, many other moments throughout the film with Kirsten. ON ANTONIO BANDERAS: As Armand, he gave the role an original interpretation, quite different from mine in the book or the script, but it worked for me as an interpretation of unique and spectacular charm. Antonio had the magnetism of a master vampire. He had the quiet confidence and the obvious power to spellbind. He redeemed the Theatre of the Vampires scene I think, with his sheer authority. He embodied the mystery of Armand and Armand's particular brand of utterly pragmatic evil. We know why he did what he did; we know it was bad; but in a way we can understand him. I would have preferred to see his beautiful curly hair as it appears in HOUSE OF THE SPIRITS, or PHILADELPHIA. But he was overwhelmingly successful as Armand, ``the oldest surviving vampire in the world.'' The readers have totally embraced him in this part. I hope he will move into the next film and maybe without the black wig? But he can come on any terms as far as I'm concerned. He was in the film so briefly that I can truly say my favorite moments with Antonio were all of his moments. But to those who have flipped over this actor, let me recommend again HOUSE OF THE SPIRITS and PHILADELPHIA. There you will see more of our Armand than in IWTV. ON STEPHEN REA: This actor was quite marvelous as Santiago, which is not a sympathetic role at all, and in one scene Stephen makes cinema history. this is the scene where Brad Pitt steps out of the airwell, having seen the ashes collapse. Brad looks at Stephen. Stephen smiles. Who will ever forget the malice of that smile? (Or the pain in Brad's face.) Incredible. Truly one of the staggering moments of the film. ON CHRISTIAN SLATER: He is utterly convincing as the interviewer and he made the story all the more powerful by his entirely understandable reactions to the tale. For me, he was plenty young enough to be Daniel Molloy, and I hope we'll see him in TVL too, but again, I don't know. Like Antonio, Christian is in the film so briefly that I can truly say my favorite moments with him are all of his moments. MINOR PLAYERS: All flawless as far as I'm concerned. There was never a false word from anybody. Quite a back up for the stars. The quadroon, Yvette, seemed real Louisiana. No simple thing. They were all good, really. In sum, the cast of this film contained actors of undeniable talent, charisma and near enchanting manner. The performances alone are worth the price of admission as far as I'm concerned. ... QUIBBLES. Loving this film as I do, I hesitate to say anything critical really. But there are a few things that struck me as not so good. Mostly they had to do with editing, or with the unfolding of the story. They are the kinds of things that can be fixed. The film watcher in me really wanted to know: Why didn't the vampires, Louis and Lestat, smell the decaying human body under Claudia's dolls? If I lived in that apartment, I would have smelled it. Certainly they would have. Why and how did the human body remain undiscovered? Do these characters have powerful senses or not? I'm puzzled. Why would dead blood affect a vampire? Why did Lestat get so hurt by drinking "dead blood?" I don't get it. Did Lestat receive enough wounds from Claudia to really disable him? I don't think so. It should have been a much more violent attack with much more rents in the flesh. Lestat is a very strong guy. I don't get it. How the hell did Lestat survive the fire in New Orleans? Why wasn't Lestat in Paris? Shouldn't he have been there to show us 1) that he had survived and 2) to climax the dreadful kangaroo court trial of those who had attacked him? I missed him in Paris. I don't think the film lagged -- I cherish the discussion between Brad and Antonio in this portion of the film -- but Lestat's appearance would have been highly effective for me. This doesn't mar my enjoyment of the film. I just wish it had been different. Why were we treated to the scene of the prostitute with her legs sprawled apart with blood gushing down her dress? In the context of the film, does Lestat really go for that sort of thing? I know, I know, Janet Maslin thought this was the central image of the film. I didn't. Why did the vampires so brutally bully the girl on the stage of the Theatre of the Vampires? I don't get it. Why did they push her and shove her? They are immortals. They are very strong, and she is very weak. Why the indignity, the vulgarity? Why wasn't she thoroughly and mercifully enchanted at the end the way she was in the book? Why was the scene so gratuitously nasty? Why was the final exchange between Louis and Lestat so brief? Good grief! Didn't Louis have a few questions? Didn't he have more to say to Lestat after all that time? I don't get it. How could he just walk out of there? I couldn't have. Again, it was beautifully done, but I wish it had been different. How did Lestat get to his position at the very end of the film? How? Couldn't there have been some indication of how he managed to be where he was in his last scene? The overall effect would have been stronger for me if there had been some clues. Again, I love the film, it worked. But I wonder... Once again, why didn't the vampires cry blood tears! ... On LIZ SMITH and her very frank and brave questions as to whether or not IWTV was a gay allegory, and her question as to why people just don't make a gay film, and why do gays have to be disguised as vampires -- Here's my answer. Ms. Smith, the gays are us. That's all there is to it. There is no disguise. Gay allegory doesn't exist apart from moral allegory for everyone. This is now evident. PHILADELPHIA made the statement in a very direct way. Tom Hanks in that film played a man that could be any one of us for any number of reasons! Years and years ago, a gay allegory was made called BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN. For most of its artistic life, people have been totally unaware that this film is a gay allegory, and with reason. IT DOESN'T MATTER. If it's about gays, it's about all of us, the secrets we carry, the traits which set us apart individually from others, the burdens we bear, the rage we feel, and the common condition that binds us. The characters of IWTV aren't gays disguised as vampires. They are us. They are us in our loneliness, in our fear, in our spiritual and moral isolation. They are us in our ruthlessness, and in our desperate quest for companionship, warmth, love and reassurance in a world full of gorgeous temptations and very real horrors. They are fallible beings with the power of gods; and that is exactly what we are, all of us. In sum, INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE is bigger that a gay allegory, and so is almost any gay allegory. Gender influences everything but determines nothing! Vampires transcend gender. We as a modern people transcend gender, though we can never escape it. Ours is a time for which there are no precedents with regard to gender and freedom. Look in vain to ancient Rome. Look in vain to the Middle Ages. There has never been so much affluence, scientific knowledge and so much common awareness of violence and injustice. There has never been so much real wealth for so many, combined with instantaneous media confrontation of poverty and suffering. Some of us see life as a horror story, but a horror story with great, great meaning. ... Finally, let me describe another aspect of this unique time. Today, what we share is more important than what sets us apart from one another. What we have in common is infinitely more important than what divides us. It has never been that way before, and the possibilities as well as the responsibilities are endless. This is the full meaning of INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE. Kinked? Yeah. Weird? You got it. Universal? Most certainly. With love, Anne Rice New Orleans, Louisiana 1994 No rights reserved. Quote any, or all of it, anywhere anytime you wish. |
| Reading | Movies | Castles | Web Design |
 |
|
|
|
Created by Jennifer Garrett
Last Updated 2/18/1999