“Another big problem was the script, which was written by Rice herself, taking her first shot at writing a screenplay. Pitt hadn’t seen it until two weeks before shooting started. When he finally did get a copy, he realized that everything in Rice’s book that was interesting about his character … was gone.
And so here he was, a rising young actor and budding sex symbol, stuck in an uninteresting, passive role.
"In the book you have this guy asking, ‘Who am I?’ Which was probably applicable to me at that time: ‘Am I good? Am I of the angels? Am I bad? Am I of the devil?’ In the book it is a guy going on this search of discovery. And in the meantime, he has this Lestat character that he’s entranced by and abhors. … In the movie, they took the sensational aspects of Lestat and made that the pulse of the film, and those things are very enjoyable and very good, but for me, there was just nothing to do — you just sit and watch.”
Brad Pitt, in an article by Mike Scott, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune
#[ Interesting to read this ] #[ I’m inclined to agree with Brad Pitt ] #[ because while I do love the movie there’s definitely big differences between movie-Louis and book-Louis ] #[ going only off the movie you would think Louis to be passive ] #[ but in the book he’s got a lot more depth and definitely is not ‘passive’ ] #[ Louis doesn’t really shed that passivity until the burning of the theatre in the movie ] #[ while in the book you have him fighting Lestat from the start ] #[ and I will always find that scene with the priest a big turning point ] #[ which is why it makes me so sad that they scripted it but never filmed it ]
SAME ;A;
I-want-my-IWTV 