Interview with the Vampire 1994 Film starring Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt | Spoiler-free

Hello, horrorphiles. In this spoiler-free episode we dissect the 1994 film, Interview with the Vampire starring Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt and Kirsten Dunst. Directed by Neil Jordan.

“The selfishly evil vampire Lestat seduces Louis into a life of immortality, where he is troubled by the need to kill to maintain his own life. He confesses his 200-year erotic and bloody adventure to an unbelieving journalist,” according to the random Amazon Blu-ray product description.

This is Dissecting Horror: Examining the anatomy of fear in film, television and literature with Kelsey Zukowski and Steven Aguilera.

We hope you find it in your cold, black, withered hearts to join our Society of Grotesquery and Loathing and keep our podcast suffering onward:

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/dissectinghorror
PayPal one-time donation of any amount: https://paypal.me/dissectinghorror
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@dissectinghorror
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dissectinghorror
Kelsey Zukowski: http://kelseyzukowski.com
Steven Aguilera: https://www.stevenaguilera.com

Photo credit: Slevin Mors

Transcript

0:03

Hello, horrorphiles. You're listening to Dissecting Horror. Examining the anatomy of fear in film, television and literature. I'm writer and performer Kelsey Kukowski. I'm filmmaker Steven Aguilera. In this episode we dissect the film, Interview with the Vampire starring Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt and Kirsten Dunst. This dissection will be spoiler-free. We are the horror whisperers, your champions of horror. In our society of grotesquerie and loathing, if you will. I will. And we hope you will subscribe for more, won't you? The selfishly evil vampire Lestat seduces Louis into a life of immortality, where he is troubled by the need to kill to maintain his own life. He confesses his 200 year erotic and bloody adventure to an unbelieving journalist, according to the random Amazon Blu ray product description. released 30 years ago on November 11th, 1994, the full title of this film is actually Interview with the vampire. The Vampire Chronicles, produced under David Geffen and based on the Anne Rice novel covered in our previous podcast. This feature was brilliantly directed by Neil Jordan. this was a rewatch for me, offering a familiar experience in moments and nearly a fresh one and others since it had been at least ten plus years since my last viewing, I wouldn't say I love it, but this viewing allowed me to walk away with a bit more appreciation for it. While what left a bad taste in my mouth initially still had that effect, largely, the over-the-top emotional outbursts and bickering melodrama and exaggerated style still pulled me out of the story at moments. However, these moments didn't encompass nearly as much of the running time as I remembered Stephen. You had watched the film several times before, but this was your first viewing with the experience of the book intact. Did that affect or alter any of your connections to the portrayals of the characters and material? although Louis in the film is still tormented, I think compared to the book, he comes across as more proactive here. He is less whiny by virtue of there simply being less material in this film format, resulting in better pacing, if nothing else. In fact, I never really noticed anything of a whimpering victim complex in him until after having read the book. I think this adaptation finds a better balance between his acceptance of being a vampire over being a victim of it. Either way, his prolonged initial passiveness makes for a more satisfying conclusion to his character arc. When finally enacting his vengeance. Which did you do first, Kelsey? The book or film? Man, it's a good question. Probably the, I yeah, I believe it was the film. And then I think I probably, I think I probably first read the book later, but I don't know, it's still probably quite a long time ago. So yes, I believe it was the film first. Okay. And so it seemed to me from your description that that aspect of Louis being more of, a whiner was something that hit you early on. And so it wasn't a thing like for me, it was the book that made me feel more that way. I never really noticed it before watching the film, but you're the reverse. Apparently you felt that way about the film in particular, and then regardless of whatever the book did on top of that. Yeah, I, I do agree that the pacing is very good in the film. It definitely keeps you engaged and keeps things moving. So it's not this kind of just dismal, meandering, solemn ness, which I think it could have easily fallen into. So yeah, the pacing is pretty engaging I'm sure it was maybe a mixture of the direction that they wanted to take the the actors in some of these scenes and the acting itself, some of it at moments. It's very good. And there's some of it that's just such an over-the-top, exaggerated, melodramatic outbursts and bickering galore everywhere style, that kind of. Yeah. It just had me my like, my memory of it was, oh, this is just ridiculous bickering melodrama. I can't take seriously. That was kind of like my predominant memory. and then I think when I went to the book, I was able to appreciate more things about it. And I think even more so in continuing like, I remember really liking the Vampire Lestat book, probably even more. so yeah, I was able to appreciate things about it, but and I think that's why I in particular Louis as a character, like it's not a bad character. and I can understand, you know, being in that, in that mindset and especially with, you know, the only person that has answers on what your existence and life is is very toxic and controlling and manipulative. So I dove and with all the even sort of human loss and trauma that he kind of had before then and then really, you know, having this big moral compass and becoming a vampire in a more religious, you know, time to where there were these, these bigger fears of, you know, damnation and moral good and bad. So I very valid. There's a lot of, you know, the reasons, you know, because he cares about brutally slaughtering people. So, I mean, it's not a bad, you know, character trait. but, yeah, I think in both versions, I, I just never really loved him again. It's, I think it's more just like my preference of vampires, to an extent to that I don't mind a little bit of that, that kind of complexity and balance and some of those moral questions. But it's also like kind of a pet peeve and like annoyance. And how do you take for granted? Again, I really love vampires. Like don't don't like trash it. Like I would embrace that nature, you know, make the most of it. So just, the vampires that are kind of more trying to be something that they aren't or in denial or just very whiny, I, I have a hard time with personal preference that was not necessarily a bad character. get that vampires are very important to you, so I'd imagine you would have a lot of thoughts and feelings, wrapped up behind what an ideal vampire should be. So I get it. Louis, the actual vampire being interviewed is played by Brad Pitt, who turned in here an understated and soulful performance, which is the exact opposite of what you just said. Isn't it understated? He's more over the top. I felt he was more, apathetic for most of it. And his voice during the voiceovers especially, were rather sad I did notice that over melodramatic point being hit, but not so much by him. It was actually at least, 1 or 2 points by Lestat and Armand. I thought, oh, that's those are like a little bit of one. really. Yeah. I would give him to be the most understated. He's like, probably the one that I'm like, okay, Armand, you did it right. It's one line each. That's it. Where I think, oh God, that was like a little bit too much, throwing his body and, his self into it. Just a little bit over the top. But that was really just, a point here and there, I never actually seen nor heard of Brad Pitt prior to this film. And consider it his breakout role. River Phoenix, older brother to Academy Award winning actor Joaquin Phoenix, was originally cast as Daniel Malloy, the interviewer. Phoenix, however, died four weeks before he was to begin filming. At age 23. Phoenix overdosed on a mixture of cocaine and heroin, commonly known as a speedball, at the Viper Room nightclub in West Hollywood. In the early hours of Halloween 1993, Phoenix was recast with Christian Slater, who donated his entire salary to Phoenix's favorite charities. Yeah, I had entirely forgotten both Antonio Banderas and Christian Slater were in this movie at all. So that was, a little bit of a surprise. But I really thought they both nailed their roles in bringing the right understanding, charisma, and presence for us. The real standout among the cast was a young Kirsten Dunst capturing the complex mental state of a mature, supernatural force stuck in a child's body. she showcases her hunger and often brutal, unfeeling nature with her victims, and sometimes even with Louis not having the same capacity for feeling as he does while still yearning for a deeper understanding, companionship and sense of self and moments. She reads as a child from the innocent and fearful to the temper tantrums of rage and misunderstanding at other moments, even at 11 years old, she portrays someone far more mature, calculating, formidable and tormented. According to her biography, Anne Rice wrote the novel soon after the death of her six year old daughter Michelle, who served as an inspiration for the child vampire character Claudia, played by Kirsten Dunst. She was 11 at the time. If my math is correct and gives one of the most astonishing child performances I have ever seen, she is sympathetic. Yet sadistic, innocent yet intimidating. I found each casting choice and performance in this film impeccable. Christian Slater, however, was the one that felt most out of place for me. He was such a contrast to the rest of the characters and cast, and I'm sure intentionally so, being representative of a different age. Still, Slater isn't one of those actors who exactly disappears into his character where you're like, wait a minute, is that That's Christian Slater. When I see him, I just see Christian Slater, not the character he's playing. Although you could say the same thing about a lot of great actors like Jack Nicholson, Clint Eastwood or Sean Connery. Although likable and distinctive enough, Slater to me does not possess sufficient depth or presence to stand toe to toe with Brad Pitt, Tom cruise, or the rest of the cast. the most chilling character to me was Santiago, played by Stephen Rea. And by the way, my name is also Stephen Rea, with Rea being my middle name, although his is spelled ra e, not r a y. So interesting. thoughts on this? I think Santiago is my biggest issue with the simple act. Really? Oh, that guy gives me the creeps in a good way. For me, the biggest offender of the cringing over the top depiction is in the theater de vampires, and especially the head exaggerated showman Santiago. It was pretty impossible for me to take his character seriously at all. From the first moment we see him to his lingering suspicions of Louis. And as things escalate, I couldn't accept him as a dangerous foe. He's a key part of the escalating climax. So that was a problem. The face off revenge scenes lose their intensity, the dramatic, loud in your face music, and especially Santiago being so cheesy with exaggerated movements detracted from the tense moment. He is a theatrical vampire, used to performing and getting gasps and laughs. So I get it. But he didn't read as nearly this much of an over-the-top joke in the novel. for the longest time, it wasn't clear to me that the theater of vampires had an audience of humans. I thought everyone there was a vampire and this was just their entertainment. I don't know if it's that clear because, like, the audience is definitely, like, gleeful and loving it. So I guess you could think, oh, well, they're loving it because they're in on the joke, or they just love seeing humans toyed with. I definitely read it as that, as if they were human and which actually added a little bit more cruelty for the victim, especially kind of having help with insights and clean and praying. And everyone thinks it's just a part of the show and kind of even ties into like, the vampires sort of hiding in plain sight and almost mocking. There would be victims that could be among the crowd. Yeah, well, that's part of it for me, is the notion of somebody dying on stage. If somebody suspected that it wasn't just a part of the show, then they're really, risking quite a bit by doing that in front of a bunch of humans. But a bunch of vampires, they, of course, would go along with it and enjoy that, but, guess not. So worst case scenario, they can slaughter everyone, you know. Yeah, and slaughter their own audience. as far as, Santiago goes, I think he is a character. Possibly his, him as an actor could be triggering to people. He came across as so sleazy to me that I hated him. But it was He's a character that I love to hate. Yeah, such a shit eating grin, he acted invincible and untouchable, and he had all these other people behind him. And you just wanted to just wring. Is neck so bad? But you know that he was safe and he knew he was safe. Or at least he thought. And I thought he played that differently from any vampire I've ever seen. And he was just, so purely evil, with no redeeming qualities to him. That I think, contrasted well with Louis. And they made for, a great dynamic there between their characters. And it was so satisfying to see that fucker, be confronted towards the end. So I think it worked out really well. And I just find him incredibly chilling. But there's that old point, which is frustrating and, fascinating at the same time, how two people can look at the same thing and one person feels completely opposite to the other. And how unpredictable that can be as an artist trying to convey something consistently amongst their audience and how it just it's a coin toss. yeah. And I think, from your perspective, that adds some depth that like, I didn't really see in the character and definitely the contrast. You're right. They're pretty much like exact opposites for his solemn and serious and moral and feeling to, you know, I think more with Santiago, I like yes, he seems evil because he is, you know, slaughtering people on stage and, you know, kind of just causing trouble. But I don't know, I feel like I didn't even get that sense of him. I think it was maybe in a different context, like I think it was like the tone of the film overall. And I guess those over-the-top moments really just like, didn't work for me. And just that he was like the worst offender of it. I feel like in say, like everything was, I don't know, like a different setting where everything was kind of like eerie and suspenseful and more building. And he was the one just maniacal evil, like, yeah, that can be really chilling and powerful and unsettling. Yeah, I think it was really just the whole theater troupe as who had this just intensely over the top sort of, quality to them, where it seemed almost more like a joke, where it actually took the, the intensity and any, any terror sort of out of it. For me, it was just. Yeah, I'll just a little bit too, too comical, exaggerated over the top. And he was just the worst offender where, I don't know, I didn't really feel like I got much of a sense of like who he was as a vampire, aside from just being like a foe to Louis, I think there was an intention to instill those, theater vampires as being rather shallow and decadent and pointless and needing to just be done away with as part of the story. And maybe they pushed a little bit too hard to the point of pushing you away. I thought it worked just fine. I didn't need to know too much about them. Besides the fact that I. I'm not supposed to like them, and I didn't, but I still appreciated their grandeur and the whole theatrical city of their characters, as you say, as part of their individual characters and, as a justification for their melodramatic poise and attitudes throughout. So I found that interesting. It was it was a contrast. It was more like a European or French sort of behavior versus the New World. And I thought that worked well for me. Yeah. but, you know, that's fine. You're wrong and I'm right. That's As mentioned, the tone of the film is really where I'm split, and it is a hindrance to itself in places that are hard to ignore. I do love the darkly poetic gothic exploration of Louise contemplative and solemn existence. It is really those so over the top. It's comical moments that had me cringing and begging for a little artistic subtlety. I can give a little leeway to the Lestat Louis Claudia dynamic, as they are largely a dependent, often toxic family, often each one a moment away from snapping if triggered, especially the relationship between Lestat in each of them individually. There are reasons for them to lash out and hurt and anger at times. There is a lot of quickly changing from seemingly calm to overwhelming rage and overreactions. In a split second, it's a bit much and does take me out of it. Or saying to myself, here we go again. But I also understand it's consistent with the material and characters dynamic with one another. Although this level of melodrama delivery seems to occur less often in the book's portrayal. the scope of this story itself broadens as it goes along, starting from a hopeless individual to eventually the epic consequences of vampire society as a whole. Besides being better paced, I personally enjoy the film more for its elements that the book lacks the magnificent score, the sets, the sounds, along with including some of my favorite actors. I don't particularly love Brad Pitt as Louis or Tom cruise as will start. yes at moments. It's the level of melodrama, but I think it's really more of a casting thing than what they individually brought to the table, or could have done differently. They aren't bad, but there are also some actors that so perfectly capture and bring to life characters, honoring them and bringing out all of their complexities, while also bringing an energy and unique understanding that allows for a sort of evolution and one of a kind portrayal. And I wouldn't say either Cruise or Pitt reach anything close to that territory. For me personally, I will say cruise did well with the material he was given. He largely encompassed the manic range of his star, from the devious and sensual Brad Prince to the controlling, rage filled puppeteer. I'm sure it was the direction he was given, but the frequent outbursts and overacting at times just keep me from really loving the performance. In moments, pitch seems to carry the weight of Louisiana lemons and plaguing guilt. But at other moments he feels far to one note when he isn't having a particularly emotional reflection. His acting is a bit robotic and stilted, particularly noticeable when he first introduces himself to the interviewer. This is clearly a creative choice, a cold removed being, which makes sense, but a far cry from representing the complex enigma the vampire represents. Louis spends most of the story longing for answers and guidance heavily dependent upon others. By the end, He rejects all companionship and any leadership by others. Forging ahead, independent and strong. We see LA stats and Luis positions reverse with Lestat, the cowering and defeated vessel, and Louis the centered and in control old soul. Tom Cruise revels in the theatricality and dark humor of his character, Lestat. I actually first saw this film in the theater, and it was one of those handful of experiences that stand out where the audience just wanted to like someone so much and were so enthusiastic about every slightest gesture he made. They were eating it all up and just could not get enough of them. contrary to how most authors feel about films based on their beloved works on the DVD. Special features interview Anne Rice gushed profusely about the film and performance by cruise, yet his initial casting as Lestat was famously criticized by rice, who said it in a movie line article published in 1994 that it was, quote, so bizarre it's almost impossible to imagine how it's going to work. I have one question does Tom cruise have any idea of what he's getting into? I'm not sure he does. I do think Tom cruise is a fine actor, but you have to know what you can do and what you can't do, unquote. She recommended other preferred actors, including John Malkovich, Peter Weller, who played RoboCop, Jeremy Irons and Alexander Godunov, the blond villain in Die Hard. She also suggested that Brad Pitt and Tom cruise switch, stating, quote, I tried for a long time to tell them that they should just reverse these roles, have Brad Pitt playlist out, and have Tom cruise play Louis. Of course, they don't listen to me, unquote. After seeing the finished film, rice said, quote, the charm, the humor and the invincible innocence which I cherish in my beloved hero Lestat are all alive in Tom Cruise's courageous performance. That Tom did make Lestat work was something I could not see in a crystal ball, unquote. She later called cruise to compliment him, and went so far as to take out a two page ad in Daily Variety declaring quote 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, unquote. I'm not sure. I realized before Anne Rice wrote the screenplay as well. It's a rarity when a novelist handles a Hollywood adaptation. Screenplay? Both her and The Name of the Vampire Chronicles. Even in 1994, having enough of a draw and power to them to allow her to be the force bringing alive the world of the Vampire Chronicles and Louise story for screen, as well is respectable. Well, I definitely had things I don't like and my own preferences of where I saw more compelling potential. I imagine this was largely what she had envisioned. Perhaps with making a few concessions, I can put largely aside my own preferences and simply take in and have some respect for an art historian intent. While there were a few changes, particularly in the setup, these changes weren't crucial enough to the story to derail it or make it seem inauthentic. Some things are given less time and aren't given the same parallels and depth, such as Armand's philosophy of vampirism, good and evil and indiscriminate killing. And really, Armand's character and his relationship to Louis are drastically minimized here. Probably the biggest loss compared to the book for me. Still, there is enough there that is present to represent his character well and offer interesting insight on their nature and their right to use humans as their blood source as they must. While there are things taken out, the pacing is quite effective. I'm usually always one for give me all the layers, depth, and book scenes many fans would enjoy more. I'm sure, but at a two hour running time and a largely melancholic, introspective piece that could become repetitive or drag, it moves along well, keeping you engaged without dragging or making you feel like everything is rushed. They found a good balance of honoring the material and making sure to offer those moments of contemplation and questioning, along with upping the stakes and action that pushes the story forward. Published on April 12th, 1976. Interview with the vampire was the debut novel of Anne Rice, based on a short story written around 1968. The later screenplay was also written by Anne Rice, a not so common occurrence. Rice was born and raised in New Orleans, and also later attended university in San Francisco, both being major locations of the story. Here, then, is an example of how write what you know can be used to good effect. I always assumed as a kid that the last name of rice was Asian. Since so much rice is consumed there. Is that racist a little bit. my bad personal. Regardless, I later came to be good friends with a white guy with the same last name of rice, and he had a sister who went on to marry a guy whose last name also happened to be rice. Now, that always struck me as quite the staggering coincidence, since I'd never known anybody before with that last name to begin with. And so having two people out there with that same name, even meeting much less falling in love and getting married, seemed incredibly, statistically improbable. But when I brought this up to my friend, he just he just shrugged it off like it never occurred to him before, which was perhaps even more bizarre to me in itself. If nothing else, I figured it very convenient for her since she would have no need to change her last name on anything afterwards. And if they divorced, same benefit. Yeah. Good for them. Can be, you know, United and empowered and stick with your identity. I will say, I have heard, you know, rice as a last name from others, but the one other person I'm thinking of right now is a white man. So I guess it's not so much. yeah. I don't know what the origin is, but it does not seem like Asian origin. There is a football player. I think it's Jerry rice or something like that. African-American gentleman. I think he was with the Raiders. I'm not a football guy, but that's the only other name of rice I've ever heard of. And when I say the word rice, I think of Rice Krispies, and it makes me a little bit, hungry for them. Yeah, I do, especially Rice Krispie treats. is it the marshmallow? it's the marshmallow. And in school they would put peanut butter in it, and it made a little bit of a, a twang that, but I really went off the rails there. something else occurred to me while watching this film that I had not considered since I was a wee lad. For some reason, I always thought vampire Fangs to be the sort of hollow straws of sorts. One would bite into the neck and then suck the blood through these, which would actually make no sense since teeth are not connected to the rest of the digestive track. But that's what I assumed was meant by sucking your blood. Now, I realized that the teeth are only meant to puncture the skin, causing bleeding, which one would then drink It's a deep suck suck from the lungs that are no longer working. Yes. And speaking of that, you are wearing a necklace which looks like it has a vial of actual blood vial and fangs. So if you listened to our previous episode, got called out by Steve for the one time, I wasn't really in theme and I also realized we never we reference, shirt not having anything to do with vampires, but like, we did not say what it was. It was, a burning Mockingjay shirt from Hunger Games. So, no, not really related. And I do tend to, just in life. If I'm watching a vampire movie, probably we'll be wearing a vampire shirt and so on. So today I went more in theme with, a vampire shirt with kind of, showcasing a lot of different iconic vampires from pop culture to early film history and more recent and totally forgot I had the shirt, but one of them actually does reference interview with the vampire by showing Lestat and as listed as the one who was not interviewed. So yes, I'm wearing that. And a blood vial hanging from my neck with fangs. whose blood is that? That's the real mystery. Oh, I was gonna ask if I could drink some of it, but then it's like your your dead grandmother's or something. That would be. You gotta, like, do what you have to do to, like, have a good accessory sometimes. Just gotta stab yourself and, you know, craft. Did you do that yourself? no. I'm kidding, because I would believe you. I don't know, I, I, I've had this for years that I bought it somewhere. It was not I didn't I did not, to not master the blood vial myself. All right. Well, that's weird and cool at the same time. The makeup and practical effects were produced under Stan Winston Studios. who pioneered the landmark effects of Jurassic Park a year prior, which, like interview with the Vampire, still holds up shockingly well. One might argue they look even better than much of what is produced today. Since technological restrictions of the time forced a limited use of computer generated imagery, which was then mixed with more practical elements, the focus on interview with the vampire was to make any effects as invisible as possible, delegating them mostly to set extensions. This was indeed one of the last big budget vampire films produced without heavy CGI. There is also something to be said for the fact that it's not truly about the tools, but the artists using them in the same way. Today's brushes and paints are no measure for how great a painting will turn out compared to those produced during the Renaissance. Both, in the end, are still basically Brushes in paint. Likewise, we have effects in this 1994 film which are superior to many films made today because they were applied well. Despite digital tools having advanced significantly since. I also have to say this film was not afraid of using real fire and lots of it and lighting it sets and half its stunt people ablaze, and everyone could not be wearing more excitable, flammable costumes as well. I kept expecting each actor's robes or poofy sleeves to go a light at any moment from the vicinity of candles alone. I do definitely appreciate the more naturalistic look of pretty much all the horror element. And yes, the fire that could have. If it was more CGI that could have looked a lot more fake and just taking you out of it more. I also really enjoyed the look at the vampires itself here. More on the makeup aspect. They had intense, slightly unnatural, vivid eyes that command and look otherworldly pale translucent skin highlighted by veins and slightly gaunt jawlines hinting at the undead nature without being over the top. They bridge between being a show of the human cells and something frozen in time. Powerful and perceptive, but haunted all at the same. I really appreciate the abundance dark humor. It also doesn't shy away from any twisted misuse of children. Much of the rich atmosphere comes from the exquisite Elliott. Golden Falls score easily in my top five horror scores, if not my number one. This film contains everything I could hope for in a horror film, including the highest production value one rarely sees in this genre a near masterpiece, not just of horror, but of filmmaking in general. And for me, only gets better with time. Definitely in my top five favorite horror films, this is exactly up my alley. Atmospheric, humorous, epic, classy yet macabre and demented, with an elegance and beauty at the same time. It showcases fully fleshed out, three dimensional characters and dialog penned by a legendary writer. Superbly performed and filmed with an exquisite dark grandeur. we perceive here that we are in the capable hands of artists who recognize what really matters in the film and have the security and confidence to know that it will work. And it does. Contrast this with your 2004 Van Helsing, or The haunting 1999 whose insecurities lean them harder into excessive CGI stunts, explosions and overacting in the futile hopes of compensating for the lack of impactful storytelling through spoken words alone. Which is exactly the opposite of everything she just said. But. Yes. I'm a little, a little surprised that you love this film that much. But also knowing that you like the the elegance sort of mansion with the with the creepy parson haunting ghosts. I guess it kind of is in line with that. So we both kind of agreed we appreciated things about the book, but didn't necessarily love it. And hearing how much you love this, it sounds like for you, the movie was better than the book. Definitely, definitely. One thing I did love about this film was the setting and atmosphere. The atmosphere is top tier, gothic, moody elegance with dashes of betrayal and bloodshed, and easily my favorite part of the film, something I had forgotten about from my past viewings, left lingering in the shadows, waiting to be discovered a new. The cinematography and visual style of this film enamored me, even when other elements threatened to disengage me. With so many isolated, eerie shots illuminated by moonlight or with a deep blue glow representing walking the human world. But it offered an entirely different reality, both vividly alluring and cruel. I have an intense, strong appreciation for anything New Orleans, especially among Gothic material. So the bulk of the film being set in or near New Orleans did a lot for me. Of course, the book was as well, but New Orleans didn't feel like as much of a character or life force as it does with the cinematic capturing the overgrown trees and masses, cemetery shots sets a morose, haunting tone as well. Stop swoops in with an almost intimate, primitive dilemma for him. Even more so the culture and life force of New Orleans, from the music to the energy to the cultural practices to combat evil like voodoo or death sliding Down the bayou are captivating and offer us a familiar yet changed world via Louie's eyes. Back when this film was shot, I used to work in San Francisco, close to the building where the interview takes place, and would walk past it each day. Somehow, though, I did not catch wind of its filming perhaps not as crowded with sketchy characters as in its opening tracking shot, it certainly was, and still is, that degraded of an area that shot, by the way, might go down in history as having the most extras looking at the camera in a single take. Did that do anything a little extra for you being being sent there? Because I know it's a kind of it's somewhat of an iconic shot, but it's also not like a big focus of the stories, just kind of like where they happen to be. it's on Market Street and much farther down Market Street from where the helicopter shot the aerial shot at the beginning, starts the film off, but it's the same street and there is for me something noteworthy about the fact that we have old World character of, Louis in this environment, which is more of a slum, modern slum. I think that was a nice contrast. But when I walked by that, same building each day, it didn't really hold any significance. And like, wow, that's that's like a really random place to to hold the such a crux of the film. And I think that was, that was probably a different actor when they ended that long tracking shot. They tilt up and they they show somebody standing at the window. I'm sure that wasn't actually Brad Pitt and it was all shot somewhere else, but they did a good job. It looks like you're looking out the windows at that same street, and I'm very confident that they couldn't have. But it does look convincing. one thing that it was, interesting you brought up the, your thoughts on the haunting, because I feel like some how you kind of felt about that film is kind of in moments, how I felt here, where I love the elegance and the style and the overall mood and force behind it. But I just wanted a little bit more subtlety. But also to your point, at least, there wasn't over-the-top CGI, so could have been worse. but yeah, there are things I think with this, with this viewing in particular, I think I was able to actually let go some preconceptions, which is actually interesting because it was after revisiting the book, and a few different versions of this. So if anything, you think it would be almost more comparing, which is a little of. But I think it more from, let, let me kind of throw away some of the overwhelming, oh, this film has a bad taste because of the these, you know, the over-the-top bickering and melodrama and everything I talked about throughout this whole podcast. So those things were there. But I think I was also able to take more of the the good with the bad in my eyes, where I was able to appreciate aspects of it more even. I know I probably spent a lot more time on this podcast talking about things I didn't like than what I liked, but I think the things that I did like, such as the setting and certain characters and things that I think just the complexities of relationships and that just remembering, okay, every moment. Wasn't this over the top outburst style that those things were there. And I also have to give some like understanding that it's not like this is a total departure from the book or the characters that were established like this was kind of in their nature. I think it was maybe because it was more condensed, you know, maybe it stood out more for me. But, I think again, yeah, it was liking more and appreciating more about it. But those things that are just a little too over the top, I'm like, I think I could have loved some things here if it was just a little more creatively, subtly, kind of weaved in in a way. But yeah, I, I did think I'm like, okay, just the comparison of, what you liked and didn't like about the haunting related to some things of how I felt about this film. it makes sense to me that being that vampires are so near and dear to your heart that you'd be more critical of content which, portrays them, and you would have your own specific, preferences as to what the ideal presentation would be for vampires and their settings and their lore and all the rest of it. So it doesn't surprise me that you're looking at this film with a much more critical eye. But for me, that thing which stands out the most for being what I love the most is just the atmosphere, the gothic ness of it. They really nailed that. The music was spot on. The feel of it was just exactly what I want to feel when I'm watching a film, and not that we're going to get into this, but that's the main thing about the series that I think was the greatest departure, in that it felt more like, a Western or something. It's set in the 1900s as opposed to the 1700s, and it was just wasn't that sort of gothic vibe. But I never got past the first episode, so maybe it delves more into that. But, I was missing that aspect the most interesting, I think, again, we were trying not to, dig too much into the show here, which I loved the most, and I particularly it's the only version of Louis that I can say I love as a character. but I definitely do think I can see because it is a different time setting and, and there's a little bit more of a gritty, urban feel to their New Orleans within that pilot episode, but it does absolutely go into a gothic elegance, poetic aspect, Due to his star power, crews received a then record$10 million salary and a percentage of the profits on Rotten Tomatoes. This film holds a 63% critic score and 86% audience score. It earned well over 223 million against a $60 million budget. at the box office alone. On our last section, we talked about how interview with a vampire has a lot of despair and bleakness, even from characters who embrace their nature more. There are a few moments of finding joy here, though. While it has nothing to do with vampirism really, one scene I appreciated was towards the end when Louis comments on the fascination and marvels of cinema and how it brought him things he hadn't experienced in so long and didn't think he ever would again, especially as cinematic and technical capabilities grew. There is something refreshing here about him finding this magic and joy when he has largely given up on finding any solace, spark, or purpose in his existence, and is a great testament to the power of cinema, allowing one to experience things that are far outside of the world. They can see in their everyday lives. They lead. While the tone and over-the-top nature makes it its own worst enemy, interview with a vampire is an effective adaptation full of eerily tantalizing Gothic atmosphere, capturing loss and connection with contemplative questionings a vampire ism honoring the spirit of the book. All in all. as a final notes, a common misconception is that it's called interview with a vampire rather than interview with the vampire to the point of being considered a mandela effect. This stems from the words with and they're merging together. So interview with the vampire sounds almost exactly the same as interview with a vampire. So there you go. If you would like to join our Society of Grotesquerie and Loathing, subscribe now and give this podcast a like and be sure to comment your wretched thoughts below. Keep our podcast suffering on by finding it in your cold, black, withered hearts. To support us on Patreon, a link to our PayPal is also below. For one time, donations of any amount. It was nice knowing you.