After revisiting Interview with the Vampire for the first time in…geez 30 years, a nagging question began to vex me like an unscratchable itch. Perhaps someone reading this can answer it for me, but more on that in a minute.
Based on Anne Rice’s uber popular novel, this movie was highly anticipated back in the day, and subjected to plenty of pre-release grousing (including some by Rice herself) over the casting of Tom Cruise in the lead role of Lestat, the insatiable, salacious and remorseless vampire who turns Louis (Brad Pitt) into an undead companion. Of course, the story is more thematically complex than that, but I’ve never found it particularly interesting…or scary.
Cruise nailed it, though, and in my humble opinion, he remains the best part of the entire movie. While the rest of the cast is wallowing in misery or being sucked dry, here’s ol’ Tom making the most of a rare opportunity (for him, anyway) to chew up the scenery. Whenever he’s onscreen, Interview with the Vampire is a hell of a lot of fun. But even though he’s top-billed, the main character is actually Louis, who’s so relentlessly morose throughout the thing that his plight becomes rote. And to be frank, I occasionally found Pitt's somber performance unintentionally funny, not helped by some goofy dialogue ("Actually, I'm quite fond of looking at crucifixes."). He's very pretty, though.
But that’s just me. A lotta folks love this one, and I can certainly see why. As modern vampire flicks go, you’d be hard-pressed to find one more atmospheric and aesthetically gorgeous (which could also describe most of the cast). Though I prefer my vampire films to have more of an emphasis on actual horror, a movie with a sympathetic bloodsucker as its main protagonist was pretty unique for the time. And admittedly, I do love how this one ends…with a final scene that’s both cryptic and funny (on purpose).
 |
| Not-so-casual Friday. |
…and hopefully, one of 'em can answer my nagging question…
Anyone who’s seen the film knows it chronicles poor Louis’ sad, remorseful life ever since being turned into a vampire by Lestat in 1791. Throughout the years, Louis shares a mansion with Lestat (until he burns it down, anyway), travels to Europe in search of others like him (until burning down their digs), then wanders the world in sorrow all the way up to the present day. But as far as I can ascertain, neither Louis nor Lestat ever struggle financially, despite never holding jobs or having any other discernable income. So my question is, how do these guys continue to afford swanky homes, fancy threads and travelling the world? Who the hell is paying their bills?
I know we probably aren’t supposed to question such things, but hey…even the vampires in The Lost Boys were reduced to living in a cave.
EXTRA KIBBLES
NEW KIBBLES - Eternal Night and Deadly Light features director Neil Jordan looking back at the work of cinematographer Philippe Rousselot; Interview with the Vampire: Creating the World is about the film’s visuals, with Jordan and production designer Dante Ferretti.
OLD KIBBLES - In the Shadow of the Vampire and Lestat, Louis and the Vampire Phenomenon are a couple of archival featurettes.
INTRO - Archival intro by director Neil Jordan, author/screenwriter Anne Rice and actor Antonio Banderas.
AUDIO COMMENTARY - By director Neil Jordan
DELETED SCENES
DIGITAL COPY
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment