Publications Index | Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’s Internet Archive
Socialist Review Index (1993–1996) | Socialist Review 183 Contents
From Socialist Review, No. 183, February 1995.
Copyright © Socialist Review.
Copied with thanks from the Socialist Review Archive.
Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.
Interview with the vampire
Dir: Neil Jordan
This is a film of the first part of Anne Rice’s Vampire Chronicles and dumps many old myths.
In the Hammer House of Horror versions you always knew what was going to happen. Vampires were petrified of crucifixes, could transform into bats, and were killed by a stake through the heart. Not so here.
The film revolves around the central character of Louis (Brad Pitt) who is turned into a vampire by Lestat (Tom Cruise). The film shows them going on a bloodthirsty rampage through 18th century Louisiana and Paris. The problem with Louis is that he cannot live with the fact he is a vampire. Whenever he kills he feels guilt.
Lestat is his opposite, the vampire who loves the sexual thrill of the kill. He’s in ecstasy whenever he drinks the blood of young men or of the French aristocrats. And what’s wrong with killing off a few of the rich? Louis, however, will have none of it, content with drinking the blood of rats, chickens, even poodles.
Lestat is a materialist, a vampire who loves to lead the life of opulence. Louis grows to despise this, especially since it’s his money being spent. Yet the big predicament for Louis is he continues to possess human feelings. Lestat, realising he may lose his wealthy partner, decides to capitalise on this, and transforms a young girl (Claudia) into a vamp as well, so Louis may shower his human emotions on her.
Claudia’s character adds some nice comic touches. When Claudia kills her dressmaker, Lestat grumbles, ‘Now who will finish your dress?’ Similarly when Claudia sucks the blood out of her piano teacher, Lestat’s reply is, ‘What have we told you? Never kill in the house!’
Interview With The Vampire cost millions to produce. So was it worth it all? The horror content is more impressive than Francis Ford Coppola’s attempt at Dracula, which descended into romantic garbage. It doesn’t, however, have you leaping out of your seat, and you soon grow tired of gallons of blood oozing all over the screen. The vampires, apart from Antonio Banderas, fail to look enigmatic and have faces that look like blocks of Stilton cheese.
The acting is fairly average as well, though Tom Cruise performs beyond all expectations. When Anne Rice first heard Cruise was to play Lestat, she was horrified. And who can blame her? After all, Cruise is the golden boy of Hollywood, famous for wholesome American roles.
Yet in Rice’s film he performs better than I’ve ever seen before. Moreover, the role of Lestat sees Cruise shed his hetero image but unfortunately the film fails to develop the homosexual sub-text.
The film is definitely no movie classic, and I doubt it will win any awards. But, despite all the criticisms, it’s better than most of the Hollywood crap on release at the moment, and you could do a lot worse than watch this one.
Socialist Review Index | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 29 November 2017