A letter from Anne Rice: on the film

FROM ANNE RICE: ON THE FILM, INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE

DEAR READERS AND VIEWERS,


As you may know, while the film IWTV was in production with David Geffen, the author of the book had no legitimate contact with him or with the studio or with anyone connected with the film.
When the announcement was made that Tom Cruise would star as Lestat, I had deep reservations and severe criticisms. So did many many of my readers. I talked openly about this. A curtain thereafter divided me from the entire production, and with reason. Nobody likes to be criticized, and that includes movie people, too.

I understand and accept what happened. But to me, movies and books are not like sports. There is no immediate consensus on whether a player had scored a home run or a touch down. So it was okay to speak my mind on the casting, and I don't have any regrets.

But to continue...
I saw no rough cuts of IWTV; I saw no clips. I went to no screenings. It wasn't until David Geffen, himself took the unusual risk of sending me a VHS tape of the movie, that I saw it. And I approached this tape with a deep fear of being hurt, crushed, disappointed, destroyed by the finished work.

When I saw the film on VHS, I came out at once in favor of it, declaring that I loved it. I bought two pages in VARIETY to talk about it in a frank and unedited announcement. No one controlled what I wrote, or had any opportunity to delete any part of it. I loved the film. I said so. I had no idea at the time that the film would be a huge success. I really hoped it would be, but I didn't know. It was so eccentric, so extreme, so weird. I came out in favor of it, fully prepared to sink with it if it failed, that is, to look stupid in my praise of it. I had no other moral and aesthetic choice. I went by the heart.

What happened on opening weekend is now history as they say. The movie made about $35 million dollars, and broke all kinds of records to do with seasons and ratings, etc. I don't remember all the details, but it was a luscious American success. And I marveled then and I marvel now.

Whatever, I have not up till this date discussed the film in detail publicly. I didn't want to program anyone's response to it. I made my positive comments very general in order that my recommendation would not shape the public's acceptance or rejection of any particular aspects of the film.

Well, over a month has passed. I have had a listed number -- 1-504-522-8634 -- in New Orleans for weeks; to receive by answering machine peoples' responses to the film. The film is now open all over the world.

Therefore, I think it's okay now to go into detail about how I saw this film. The film has established itself in the public consciousness. It's okay to talk about details.

I want to do it. That's why I'm writing this. This essay or commentary or whatever it is -- is shaped entirely by personal feeling and preference. It doesn't conform to anyone's standards as a piece of writing. It is simply my point by point discussion of the film. I wrote it for myself and anyone else who wants to know how the author responded to INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE, THE FILM.

If this personal statement seems arrogant, please reconsider. I am striving to make my remarks in full, and not to trust them to an editor or journalist who might for valid reasons cut them, or quote them out of context.

Look upon this gesture, if you will, as an American gesture. I have something to say. I say it. I do not wait to be asked, interviewed, packaged or covered by the news.

What fuels this statement is a passionate love of the film, a marvelous relief that it exists now in a form that can be preserved; that it was what I dreamed it could be, and that I got through the whole experience without being destroyed. A mediocre film would have destroyed me just as much as a bad one. I thought IWTV was exceptional.

So here goes, point by point:
The look of IWTV was for me perfect. Dante Ferretti knew exactly what he was doing with the sets. The costumes were impeccable. And the cinematography of Philippe Rousselot was extraordinary. Stan Winston's makeup achieved an eerie and effective otherworldly look. The score by Elliot Goldenthal I found to be quite wonderful.

Minor note: The hair of the characters in the film was eccentric -- it was not in conformity with the descriptions in the book or my script, or with historical evidence. But it was very interesting, at times more than beautiful, and it worked.

The opening shots of San Francisco caught the grimness of the city, the urban mixture of desperation, poverty and affluent life. Though Brad Pitt did not appear as "beautiful" as I had wanted in the opening scene (the actor is incredibly beautiful actually) he was divinely other worldly -- the Stan Winston make up had its own perfection and appeal with the blue veins beneath the skin, and Brad spoke his lines boldly and well.

As the film plunged into 18th century Louisiana, it had the atmosphere and feel of a pirate film -- rugged, ragged, and full of rats and candles. Superb. This was infinitely better than the fussy Dangerous Liaisons look which worked beautifully for that film but which would never have caught the humid, friable, and doggedly makeshift life of the colony of New Orleans.

The shift to Paris was superb. In a few words and shots, the film caught the unmistakable vitality of a great capitol city, and the contrast to the colony was splendid and thrilling.

The final New Orleans scenes had exactly the right pitch. They caught the shabbiness of New Orleans and the mysterious loveliness of its overgrown and neglected gardens.

The art direction, costumes, lighting , cinematography and craft of the film were sumptuous and thrillingly successful for me. I was grateful for the uncompromising lushness of the film, for its magnificent interiors and brutal exteriors for its relentless attention to detail throughout in creating an immense and tantalizing and utterly convincing world, all of one fine and infinitely varying fabric. Bravo!

Now I would like to discuss the actors and actresses. I'm using first names not because I know these people really well or anything, but because using last names always sounds cold to me. I don't like it. So....

ON BRAD PITT:

Brad Pitt immediately infused the despairing Louis with understandable feeling. He played it passive and quiet, and for me and for lots of viewers (they call me and tell me) he got what guilt was all about, a guilt sometimes that is unattached to any one death or loss. He captured the despair of some one who has fallen from grace, lost his faith, seen what he cannot abide. Brad's eyes, his manner, his soft voice throughout the film were magical.
Ironically, the Louis whom Brad played on the screen is more passive than the Louis of the novel or of my first draft screenplay (which was of course rewritten and changed and edited and enlarged by Neil Jordan). But Brad Pitt made this passive suffering character totally appealing and sympathetic. His seemed to combine youth and patience, acceptance and conscience.

Favorite Brad Pitt moments for me:

Brad's soft voice saying the single syllable "No" when Lestat prepares to give the Dark Gift to Claudia.

Brad's last real scene with Claudia, their discussion on the balcony outside the hotel room -- another contribution from Jordan which was never in my original script.

Brad's face when he finds the ashes in the airwell, and when he turns to confront those who have hurt him so deeply. Absolutely masterly acting. One of the most painful and exquisite moments in film that I have ever watched. Brad did it without a word. Magnificent.

Brad's soft conversation with Armand, especially the last conversation, which was not written by me, but represented, I thought, a wonderful dramatization of the parting of these two characters. The intimacy of this scene, its delicacy, the restraint and the love -- were all glorious to behold.

Brad's anger with Christian Slater in their final moments. Excellent.

There were many other such moments with Brad Pitt.

I respect and am amused by Brad's recent redneck persona. I've been tempted to write a satire INTERVIEW WITH THE REDNECK VAMPIRE just for him and probably will. (I loved Brad in Kalifornia. I've got the story all worked out and I think the Constitution protects satire. Who knows? Maybe Saturday Night Live will want it. One of my dreams for years has been to write for Saturday Night Live.) The readers calling me really want Brad in the future vampire chronicle films. Well, Brad? Is a burrito really better than immortality? All jokes aside, you were a delicate and heartbreaking Louis; whatever you felt, you swept people off their feet.

ON TOM CRUISE:

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.
I'm no good at modesty. I like to believe Tom's Lestat will be remembered the way Olivier's Hamlet is remembered. Others may play the role some day but no one will ever forget Tom's version of it.

(Let me say here that anyone who thinks I did an "about face" on Tom just doesn't know the facts. My objections to his casting were based on familiarity with his work, which I loved. Many many great actors have been miscast in films and have failed to make it work. I don't have to mention them here. Why hurt anyone by mentioning the disaster of his career? But we've seen big stars stumble over and over when they attempt something beyond their reach.

That Tom DID make Lestat work was something I could not see in a crystal ball. It's to his credit that he proved me wrong. But the general objections to the casting? They were made on solid ground. Enough on that subject. Tom is a great actor. Tom wants challenges. Tom has now transcended the label of biggest box office star in the world. He's better.)

Favorite moments with Tom:

Tom's initial attack on Louis, taking him up into the air, praised by Caryn James so well in the New York Times. Ah! An incredibly daring scene. The finest romantic scene in any film, and here please read the word romance as an old and venerable word for timeless artistic forms of poetry, novels and film.

Romance is a divine word which has never really been denigrated by the drugstore novels with the swooning ladies on the cover. Romance will be with us for all time, If you want to know more about Romance, put on a video of THE FISHER KING and listen to Robin Williams describe the deeper meaning of romance to his newfound girlfriend. It's worth it, believe me.

Back to Tom: other great moments.

Tom's bedside seduction of the dying Louis, in which he offers Louis the Dark Gift. Once again, Tom gave Lestat the virility and the androgyny that made both him and the offer irresistible. He was near blinding. I would have accepted the Dark Gift from him then and there. Only an actor with complete confidence and conviction could have done that scene or any of the others.

Tom's angry outburst in the face of Louis' repeated questions. His stride, his voice both loud and soft, his frustration, his obvious discomfort, and inner conflict. Once again, Tom took over the screen, the theatre, the mind of the viewer. Immense power.

Tom riding his horse through the slaves' fire, and then turning the horse around so that he could face the suspicious mortals. That was on a par with Errol Flynn and Rudy Valentino. It was on a par with the opera greats who have played Mephistopheles. Only a genuine "star" can make a moment like that, and I'm as confused as to why...just as much as anyone in Hollywood. Let's close this one out with one word: Grand! (No, can't stop talking about it.)

If I had to settle for one picture in this film, it would be that shot of Lestat on horseback looking back at the suspicious mortals.

That was and is my hero. That was and is my man. Lestat just won't be afraid of anybody. He won't stand for it. He hates what he is as much as Louis, but he cannot do anything but move forward, attempt to make existence worth it, attempt to create. He knows the formula for success, and has no patience with the formula for failure. That's Lestat.

Tom's rage and obvious pain in the scene with the bleeding wench and the coffin, one scene from the book which I did not include in my script. it was probably put in by Neil Jordan. If Tom had not given so much depth to this scene, it might have been unwatchable. His desperation, his vulnerability, made it work, and he made himself in it the worthy object of compassion. No small feat! I found the scene, otherwise, to be disgusting.

The shot of Tom looking through the green shutters, and the falling rain, knowing that Louis is somewhere out in the night. This was a gorgeous and eloquent shot. Again, it was the actor who gave it the depth in all the subtle ways that only he can do.

Tom's making of Claudia, and here I want to praise the entire trio...Tom, Kirsten, Brad... The scene is directed delicately and captures the intimacy, the blasphemy and the undeniable innocence and blundering of the human who has a supernatural gift to give and in his pain and confusion, chooses to give it, come what may. That's a scene for now, for our world of scientific and medical miracles, as much as any scene in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and Tom pulled it off right to the last second.

Later, Tom's confusion when after bringing Claudia a doll, he sees Claudia turn on him. About half of what I wrote for this scene in the script, or less, made it into the film, and I liked what I saw very much. I wish they'd gone on with the version of this scene that is in QUEEN OF THE DAMNED (see Jesse's discovery of Claudia's diary, and the entry describing what happened), but alas, what they did was great.

Tom's manner and expression on the dangerous night that Claudia comes to him and offers him her "reconciling gift." Close in on those two at the harpsichord. Tom is seated, I believe. Kirsten is behind him and apparently offers him the acceptance he needs so desperately. Scenes like this, with Tom, make this film work.

Every humorous scene Tom attempted was a complete success. The rat and the glass, I adored it. The humor added apparently by Neil Jordan -- the poodles, the piano teacher hitting the keyboard, the dressmaker biting the dust...well, I didn't adore all that, but Tom carried it off with true wit and style. And yes, its all right to laugh at those parts. We do every time we go to see the movie.

There are many other great Tom Cruise moments throughout the film. Many. But these are the ones I cherish now.

The readers calling me desperately want Tom to play THE VAMPIRE LESTAT. I hope he does. I hope I get to write the script for the movie. Tom's power, knowledge, skill, magnetism and artistic integrity are part and parcel of the success of IWTV, and there is no doubt that Tom would bring power and magic to TVL.

(Let me digress again. For those of you who haven't read TVL, it is not really a sequel to IWTV. It's a complete full novel on its own, beginning the Vampire Chronicles. IWTV was the truly difficult film to make. TVL will take commitment, money and immense faith as well as talent, but compared to IWTV, it is much, much easier to film. Lestat is the true hero of TVL. He is entirely sympathetic. The trick, I think, will be achieving a texture in that film that includes all of Lestat's adventures...from the snows of the Auvergne, to the boulevards of Paris, through the sands of Egypt, and through the visit to Marius' sanctuary, and on to the twentieth century rock music stage. The tales of Armand and of Marius all also excursions for Lestat essentially. I hope Tom makes the journey.)

One point: I am puzzled by what seems to be a discrepancy between the way Tom played Lestat, and the way my hero, Producer David Geffen, and others have described Lestat as a character. Did Tom on his own make this role a little bigger, brighter and more complex than anyone else realized it could be? I don't know. David Geffen called Lestat "nasty" when he was interviewed by Barbara Walters. Nasty? I don't get it. But David Geffen is my hero for getting this film made. No one else could have done it. So why quibble about what David said?

There is one problem created by the compelling charm of Tom's performance, obviously. Since he isn't all that nasty, why does Louis hate Lestat? How can he? Well, I'll take that problem any day over a more shallow solution. Tom his the right note. And Louis was Louis. Nothing could comfort Louis. The film got it.

ON KIRSTEN DUNST:

Magnificent and flawless as Claudia, shocking in her soft, perfectly paced shifts between adulthood and childish innocence. The role as she played it is far less sinister than the Claudia of the book, and perhaps even a little more innocent then my first draft script. But the change seemed to work wondrously to deliver the heartbreak of Claudia's dilemma to the audience. She was a woman, but she was in a child's body. The actress showed incredible intelligence and cunning, and yet a child's tragic vulnerability and heartrending capacity to be disappointed.
Anybody who doesn't see what this is about -- all women are locked in the bodies of dolls; all self contemplating human souls are locked in mortal and often confounding bodies -- isn't perhaps asking enough of himself or herself as a viewer. To say this film contained only one idea or no ideas as Janet Maslin said in the New York Times, is, I think to severely underrate it.

The better part of the ideas of this film revolve around Claudia, and her dilemma is truly one shared by everyone. That the film arouses and sustains sympathy for her so that her inevitable fate is tragic is a great cinematic accomplishment.

What Kirsten did in this film has dealt a body blow to the rigid, stupid cliche of the demonic child. Kirsten blew THE BAD SEED out of the water. She is utterly beyond the evil puppetlike child vampires of other movies. She drew us into her motives for violence and offered us a deeper understanding of all the moral rules given us, or created by us. That none of her gestures, words, or actions was prurient was a major achievement.

Favorite moments with Kirsten:

The entire transformation scene in the bed from suffering waif to glorious child killer.

When she looks down from the balcony in the Rue Royale and says, ``It means...I shall never grow up.''

Her quiet voice in the scene where Lestat brings her the doll (again, about half of what I wrote survived there, maybe less, but I liked Jordan's changes except for one minor point which I'll make below.)

Her seduction of Lestat and subsequent attack on him, especially the moment when she tumbles back on the couch next to the young boys and smiles up at Lestat. Perfection.

Her loving and intimate scenes with Louis in which she becomes a woman, remaining both a daughter and a mother.

The perfect pitch of prepubescent innocence throughout. The movie isn't about peephole sex, and nobody exemplifies that better than Claudia. It isn't about perversion at all. It never was. It is about the attempt of all of us to live in the light and with grace. Kirsten got the whole thing.

Her final scene.

Again, there are many, many other moments throughout the film with Kirsten.