Hey! I’m really enjoying your VC fanart. Keep it up!
So, spoiling ppl with plot points, that’s one way to drag fresh blood into a new fandom ;D I know I love being spoiled, I want the plot points before I read a book, so if your friends want that info… I have a few timelines, Idk if any are the definitive one, try my #timeline tag.
One timeline AR published is in the Vampire Companion, but it’s not up to date, but it’s through books 1-5 and you might still be able to find it online or on Amazon or somewhere else.
I like being spoiled a lot of the time because it gives me a chance to mentally and emotionally prepare for what might be coming. It also lets me get right in there with appreciating the bits of foreshadowing and seeing how the gears of the plot are turning.
I agree, @audacityinblack, that’s very well-put re: it also lets me get right in there with appreciating the bits of foreshadowing and seeing how the gears of the plot are turning. For me, it’s not as much about the plot points as how a story is told, and so I get something different out of the story every time I go through it.
But I have to know in advance who dies! I’ve always skipped ahead for that.
I get why ppl would NOT want to be spoiled, too. I don’t personally think either approach is better, just different strokes for different folks.
I don’t know the real reason, I don’t know anyone who does. I don’t know if it was Anne Rice’s choice, or Neil Jordan’s.
I think there were a lot of factors that went into that decision, and it stirs up alot of issues and questions, alot has been written about it and alot more can be written about it!
TL;DR: 1) I think it was done to cut time, Louis being distraught about losing a wife and child is immediately understandable to anyone who hasn’t read the books. It starts off the film with Louis questioning the reasons of a God that could punish him for seemingly no reason at all.*
2) The other main issue is whether Louis is/was straight or if he actually was bisexual/homosexual/etc. as a mortal and Lestat entering the picture and pulling Louis into vampiring made it possible for Louis to let go of his preconceived ideas and social/religious/etc. repression and accept himself for what he really was. Neil Jordan probably wanted that left open-ended and unanswered.
(*It could have set up the whole Louis-frustrated-about-how-religion-plays-into-vampiring, but that was cut from the film, too.)
1) One of the audiobook recordings for IWTV has a runtime of 14 hours and 28 minutes [X] and that’s ALOT OF STORY to condense down into a movie that can’t be that long. Scenes have to be cut.
The movie we got is 2 hours long, and in 1994, I seem to remember movies being more in the 1.5 hour range. Titanic, clocking in at a little over 3 hours long, was kind of ridiculed by the critics for that lengthy runtime. These days, a 2-3 hour movie is not really as big a deal.
Building in the right amount of time/scenes to show the circumstances of Paul’s death and why Louis felt so responsible for it, that would have increased the runtime and delayed the amount of time we get to the actual vampiring. I can’t check the film right now but I think Lestat appears within the first 15 minutes of the movie, for good reason. To get the vampiring STARTED.
2)
In 1994, same-sex marriage was legal in zero states. Now it is the law of the land. Movie!IWTV was already pushing the envelope to suggest that Louis/Lestat were in a romantic relationship together. So, if Louis starts his story as having been married to a woman, it would appear that he’s established as being straight. On the surface.
HOWEVER! this is a Neil Jordan movie, and one of his previous movies, the Crying Game, Jordan had gender issues and sexual orientations as main concerns, so perhaps starting Louis off as SEEMING TO BE STRAIGHT and then having Lestat swoop in and now Louis is “with” Lestat somehow, experiences that moment of intense intimacy when he is given the Dark Gift… so Jordan seems to be asking the audience if Louis was actually bisexual or homosexual as a mortal and suppressed it? Since we never see Louis and Lestat actually make love on screen (aside from the Dark Gift happening), does it still count as a homosexual relationship?
^I think Neil Jordan wanted these questions left open-ended, and for that to be part of the exquisite torture that is the Louis/Lestat ship. Is it platonic or romantic? Jordan isn’t telling, and neither is Louis.
There is, as I said, a lot more to it than that, but these are the main issues that come to mind for me, and I’m also trying to be concise. Anyone can reblog/comment with more ideas.
First of all: “Casting Stress™” ? ACCEPTED. New tag.
RE: “Like, everyone in this fandom has a different headcanon and goddamit that’s tricky!” That’s an understatement, lol. Even AR has a different headcanon than we do, apparently. Reconciling all our headcanons is highly unlikely, but it’s great that we have Tom’s Lestat as evidence that the actor CAN win ppl over based on their acting (and the rest of the cast & crew’s efforts**) to overcome their physical non-compliance re:
headcanon.
Obviously I’m also very attached to Tom Cruise’s Lestat, I feel ya there ❤
TL;DR: I would hope that whoever gets cast will give it their professional best AND win us over as best they can, have a whole team supporting them well, and a director/showrunner with a clear vision. It’s not all on the new Lestat’s shoulders. It’s a team effort.
Hit the jump for a little more.
And I’ve said this before but I’ll say it again: I’d love to have him train the new Lestat, or at least be available as an adviser, but a new actor will probably want to stake their own claim on the character, like Heath Ledger made his own Joker w/o Jack Nicholson’s advice (I don’t think they talked about it). Different Jokers, different films. Gonna be a different Lestat for a different adaptation.
What made Tom’s Lestat so great? A lot of factors had to come together but mainly, he did his homework, he had read at least the first three books (maybe the 4th, too), he practiced reading aloud from books from the time period the character lived in, watched videos of lions attacking prey (yes they used to show that kinda thing on TV!), etc., and did a lot of that work on his own. I see it in the tags pretty often that ppl who dislike Tom in general loved him in this role.
**But more than his own work, he had a director* with a clear vision and a full cast and crew supporting that vision. Every department contributed to his (and the film’s) success, makeup, costume, set design, special fx, music, etc., it all harmonized in the end. I’m not saying it was the BEST FILM OF EVER, but it was a successful adaptation in my opinion, and I’m not the only one of that opinion. I’ve been told publicly and privately that that adaptation was the gateway drug to many ppl reading the books, so in that sense, it was successful!
*Apparently Neil Jordan was responsible for most of the comedy that got into the script, mostly in Lestat’s dialogue/actions. It was Neil’s idea to add that ending, which was more upbeat than the original ending (which was the book’s ending). That’s an example of a director making a choice that deviated from canon and it working out (admittedly, it would have caused canon continuity issues for a sequel). I’m sure there are ppl who would still prefer the canon ending, but the majority of opinions I’ve seen/heard have been that ppl liked the changed ending.
Hmmm, I don’t know! We only see them in the coffin (for sleeping, as you said, not like in the scene Louis gets locked into a coffin by the TdV) a few times in the film. That could be a sample size problem, maybe other nights they did change into pajamas!
1) There’s the night Louis gets turned, maybe there wasn’t enough time that night to change his clothes but he really ought to have, since his clothes would’ve gotten messy from the procedure (the whole “your body is dying” thing) maybe the filmmakers didn’t want to give him the chance to change clothes bc that would be too caring of Lestat, gotta keep the focus on Lestat being an antagonist.
2) Maybe in these shots w/ Claudia, she is dressed for “bed,” but Louis didn’t have time to change, or maybe he likes dressing in what he’s going to wear the next night… but I think it’s mostly to try to reduce the pedo taboo. He’s a faher figure, even though he’s technically her brother. If he was wearing something more comfortable or showing anymore than face & hand skin, it could be construed as … not fatherly.
IIRC, changing clothes for bed isn’t mentioned in the book!IWTV. I’ll reblog a few posts of vampires in bedclothes for ya ;D
Lestat talks about putting on a special outfit when he stays over at Marius’ house in TVL. He finds a gold mask w/ a hood, leather gloves covered with gold scales, and a blanket with gold plates on one side.
“I realized that if I put on this mask and these gloves – if I laid
over me the blanket – then I would be protected from the light if anyone
opened the lid of the sarcophagus while I slept.”
I’m not sure if this has been mentioned before, but in the Vampire Chronicles, Louis is described as repeatedly watching “The Company of Wolves” which was directed by Neil Jordan, who also directed the Interview with the Vampire film. This means that Neil Jordan exists within the VC universe, so does this mean the IWTV movie exists for them as well?
Yep, I think it does. Lestat is still annoyed that they didn’t just cast him to play himself. He lurked around on the set watching them film it and muttering “That’s not how that went down at all…” He was insufferable.
Brad Pitt’s contract for Interview with the Vampire, 3/11/1993. [X]
“A loanout agreement from Geffen Pictures related to Pitt’s role as Louis in Interview with the Vampire concerning his compensation, including a percentage of the gross, and screen credit. Signed on the last page by Pitt. Expected document wear, otherwise fine condition. Ths significance of this document to Pitt’s career is tremendous! Accompanied by a COA from PSA/DNA.”
I-want-my-IWTV 