This paper compares Anne Rice's 1976 novel Interview with the Vampire with Neil Jordan's 1994 film adaptation, analyzing key differences in character portrayal, plot choices, and thematic tone. The paper examines how the film alters details such as Louis's backstory, Claudia's age, and the relationship between Louis and Armand in ways that emphasize the vampires' humanity — sometimes at the expense of the otherworldly alienation central to Rice's original vision. Drawing on reviews by Roger Ebert and Janet Maslin, as well as close readings of both the novel and the film, the paper ultimately concludes that preference for one version over the other depends on whether the reader or viewer is more drawn to the vampires' humanity or their preternatural transcendence of it.
Before the modern infatuation with vampires, werewolves, and other supernatural beings, stories dealing with the supernatural were often relegated to the fantasy genre and considered beneath serious consideration. However, the genre shifted with Anne Rice's 1976 publication of Interview with the Vampire, a novel that told the sweeping story of the vampire Louis, his life as a human being, his transformation into a vampire, and his troubled relationships with his sire, Lestat, and their child, Claudia. The novel, often considered the second most influential vampire novel after Bram Stoker's Dracula, did much to change the modern image of the vampire. Rather than being viewed as monstrous and evil, Anne Rice's portrayal of Louis characterized him as a victim who did not understand his immortality when he received it and, as a result, simultaneously feared and embraced death.
The book developed a significant following and was the first in Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles. Moreover, the characters introduced in it went on to play cameo roles in many of her other works, so that nearly every one of her books featuring a supernatural storyline has some connection to Interview with the Vampire. In other words, there were exceedingly high expectations for any film adaptation of the novel.
As one might expect, the huge fan base for the entire book series meant that any movie adaptation was going to face severe criticism. The time constraints of a film make it impossible to capture all of the details in a novel of this length. Moreover, some of the novel's more troubling ethical elements would have created difficulties for the filmmakers, necessitating changes that affected not only the content but the tone of several characters. Perhaps most controversial was the casting: even Anne Rice initially lamented the director's choice of Tom Cruise to portray Lestat. This paper examines both the book and the movie, noting their differences and similarities, and considers which more successfully portrays the atmosphere Anne Rice intended when she first wrote the novel.
In order to determine whether the book or the movie does a better job of capturing Rice's perspective on vampires, it is important to understand the approach Rice took to the story. "In Interview with the Vampire, Anne Rice had a tough point-of-view choice to make. She wanted to tell the story of the intense emotional longings of a moral being after two hundred years as a vampire" (Smith, N.p.). However, in addition to sharing the vampire's personal perspective, she also wanted to reframe the vampire mythology. "Rice also wanted the reader to feel the seductive pull of the vampire, to see him as The Other, someone who is different from the 'normal' people in society, a tragic outcast, inhuman and beautiful" (Smith, N.p.). This helps explain her choice of a third-person narrator in the novel, even though the story is essentially Louis's autobiography. Films are generally told through an omniscient third-person perspective, but the differences between an omniscient narrator and a more limited third-person narrator can be very significant, and those differences are evident in the movie.
His third-person perspective may be one of the most critical differences between the book and the film. In the book, the reporter Daniel Molloy repeatedly offers insight into his own thoughts about the vampire Louis de Pointe du Lac. He is the one who describes Louis's physical beauty and magnetic allure, so that the reader sees Louis through Daniel's eyes. Whether Louis is actually physically beautiful is, essentially, unimportant; what matters is that Daniel perceives him as beautiful, alluring, and alien. Within the first few paragraphs of the book, Louis turns on a light and reveals himself to Daniel, and he is "utterly white and smooth, as if he were sculpted from bleached bone, and his face was seemingly inanimate as a statue, except for two brilliant green eyes that looked down at the boy intently like flames in a skull" (Rice, Kindle). Daniel continues to examine Louis and describes details about his physical beauty throughout the novel. The description presents Louis as a preternatural beauty who, in darkness or shadow, can pass as human, but who is clearly not human when viewed in full light.
The movie is unable to fully capture the otherworldly beauty that Rice describes in her novel. The actors chosen to play the vampires were undoubtedly among the most attractive people in Hollywood at the time, and the costume department did a fantastic job selecting rich period clothing and providing makeup, contacts, and hair styling appropriate to the era. However, the familiar actors — who had been seen looking equally, if not more, attractive in other films — did not possess a preternatural quality. Their skin, while pale, did not look like bleached bone, and their features in repose did not resemble inanimate statues. It may have been beyond the special-effects capabilities of the time, but the film's vampires do not capture the physical otherworldliness of those in the novel.
Furthermore, the film vampires do not match the physical descriptions in the novel. For example, Louis is described in the novel as having black hair (Rice, Kindle), while in the movie his hair is a medium shade of brown (Jordan). This may seem like an insignificant detail, but the novel conveys a portrait of Louis that is a study in contrasts — bone-white skin, bright green eyes, and black hair — a quality that is not captured in the film.
"How altered backstories shift Louis's character"
"Armand subplot and Louis's alien nature"
"Ebert, Maslin, and the film's emotional amplification"
Ultimately, the movie provides a decent rendition of the book. Anne Rice was notoriously opposed to some of the casting choices, but she expressed her pleasure at the final result (Maslin, N.p.). The fact that she approved of the film goes a long way toward suggesting that it successfully conveyed the author's intent. However, whether one finds the book or the movie more compelling appears to be a matter of personal preference. Those drawn to the innate humanity and internal struggle of vampires will probably find the movie more appealing. Those drawn to the idea of vampires being able to, at least momentarily, transcend humanity will likely find the book more compelling. Either choice is bound to provide both entertainment and food for thought.
You’re 42% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.