Neil Jordan’s film Interview with a Vampire has reached 30 years old this year. A discovery I made when I decided to watch my DVD copy to overcome the near-daily paralysis by film choice. Like so many of my peers, I have to forcibly stick with an immediate film choice or else be cursed to doomscroll for the rest of the evening. So camp, beautiful, depressed vampires abound! Interview with a Vampire is one of those films I always didn’t mind watching. However, narrative fragments fall out of my head despite multiple viewings. This time, I tried to reconcile my issues with a film I enjoyed most of despite holding it at arm's length.
Based on the 1976 Anne Rice novel of the same name,
Interview with a Vampire tells the angsty story of Louis (Brad Pitt), a
previously widowed slave owner who chronicles his centuries-long life as a
creature of the undead. From his transformation by malicious vampire Lestat
(Tom Cruise) to his parental relationship with Claudia (Kirsten Dunst), a young
girl who has turned into a vampire through unfortunate circumstances.
Interview with A Vampire perhaps was infamously known for
Anne Rice’s anger at Cruise being picked for the role of Lestat. Her
anger quickly quelled after watching the performance by Cruise. A turn that is
still considered as one of his most memorable. Lestat always felt like a
landmark role for Cruise. It marks the first time the actor toyed with the role
of anti-hero. But it’s also significant that while the homoeroticism
of Top Gun was more of a byproduct than a necessity of that film, it is baked
into Interview with a Vampire in a way that can't be ignored. Being
the early 90s an element of brevity can be seen in one
of Hollywood's notable golden boys playing a character who is so
against type. In looking at Cruise’s filmography, his most alluring
performances are when he decides to go against the grain. His roles that play
against or challenge his more typical masculinity are almost always more
interesting than when he embraces it. Give me Eyes Wide Shut (1999), Magnolia
(1999), or this over the ongoing Mission Impossible
movies he’s seemingly resigned to do. Cruise’s Lestat is
one of the few times he unlocks the sociopathic side. It worked so well that
Rice took out a two-page spread in Variety praising his performance and admitting
she was wrong.
Cruise’s brash Lestat dampers Brad Pitt’s turn as Louis
formidably. The contrast is palpable and possibly stems from Pitt’s depression
when working on the film. The long dark days of a six-month stint in London
had got to him so badly that he asked producer David Geffen how much it would
cost to get out of the movie. The price? $40 million. Pitt’s passive Louis is a cypher, with none of the visual tics that the actor became known
for. Interview with a Vampire trades in on his beauty, but none of the viral
sexuality or energy that made him interesting in his earlier 90s films and
beyond. It’s an overly mannered performance which comes off as flat and
laboured. All the industry goes to Tom.
While an unevenness between the two leads exists, Interview
is still an interesting artefact in that the homoeroticism still simmers under
the lid. To see these now Hollywood heavyweights play out petty, catty
arguments with each other like a middle-aged couple feels radical. As does the
unconventional family unit between two male vampires and Claudia (a fantastically firey Kirsten Dunst), the child
sired almost out of pity by Lestat. And we must remember Antonio Banderas, an
Almodóvar fave, turning up in the latter stages. The film has more than a
little queer credential. Allegedly Anne Rice’s fear of Hollywood’s homophobia
was so great that at one point, she turned in a rewritten version of the film
with a female Louis, with Cher in consideration for the role. By sticking to
their guns Neil Jordan creates a far more engaging piece. It’s something you
didn’t see a ton of in the 90s: a highly budgeted, queer horror film with
Hollywood A-Listers. The only thing that comes close is perhaps one of Jordan’s
influences on the film: Francis Ford Coppola’s Dracula (1992) which
came two years before it. Although Coppola’s film outdoes Interview for out and
out horniness.
Were the dark, gothic Vampires the perfect creatures for the
cynical 90s era? Interview with a Vampire and Dracula suggest this.
Both films were not only large in scale, and rich in detail. They were also big
on existential malaise and deep-seated longing. In Interview, this is perhaps
best exhibited in the unfortunate character of Claudia. Growing older in mind,
but never in physicality, Claudia is possibly the saddest string in Interview’s
bow. Along with the idea that vampires must keep in touch with the world as it
changes and evolves. A latter scene involving Lestat alludes to a feeling of
immortal senility as it is shown that he has not kept up with the changing
times of the world.
The edgy vamps of the latter end of the decade illustrate
one of Interview's weaknesses. After a while, these haunted sad sacks stop
being engaging. Looking back at the film during this rewatch, I found the inner
turmoil of Louis rather bland. Cruise’s Lestat, the driving force behind all
the most entertaining aspects of the film, goes missing for most of the film's
second half. While the film’s narrative dissipates once the action moves to
Paris. The introduction of Antonio Banderas and Stephen Rea should be a boon
for the story. Both actors put in decent turns. But the problem is that Louis
remains uniquely unsympathetic throughout. It’s easy to feel like Lestat;
infuriated with Louis's supposed “goodness” despite there being very little to
him. One suspects the novel's success lies in how Rice rounds out the
character. If any book fans stumble on this piece, let me know.
And it’s with this that I realised my issue with Interview with a Vampire. Despite the lavish detail and exciting, over-the-top performances from Cruise, Rea and Banderas, Louis is just a dull interviewee. Even with everything being told to an excited Christian Slater. In addition to the later stages' lack of narrative propulsion, Pitt's central performance highlights the trouble I now find with this gothic drama. But I can never be too harsh on it. Looking back on its release 30 years ago, what I also see is the kind of gateway drug to overblown, gothic horror that is always warmly welcomed by myself. Despite my issues with the material. Which is why I probably still own the DVD.
(4
