Analysis

Interview With the Vampire Shows the Strengths and Weaknesses of Adaptation

Claudia, Louis, and Lestat from Interview with the Vampire
When it comes to film adaptations of classic novels, people have, shall we say, strong opinions. A common refrain is that the movie is always worse than the book. Fortunately, that isn’t true. While plenty of film adaptations are indeed worse than their source materials, others are just as good, and many are actually better.* Today, we’re examining an adaptation that is somehow both better and worse: Anne Rice’s Interview With the Vampire. Having just read the book and watched the film for the first time, it’s fascinating how the adaptation made some elements of the story better while also making others worse. Better still, there are lessons that all storytellers can learn from, whether you’re writing screenplays or novels.

Strength: Less Filler

Louis with a scythe watching coffins burn.

Interview isn’t an easy book to read, but not because of all the murder or questionable vampire raunchiness. Instead, the most immediate problem is all the filler. So. Much. Damn. Filler. Louis has a whole backstory section about how his brother died and why Louis thinks it’s his fault, just to explain why Louis is in the headspace to accept being a vampire. Lestat has a mortal father who’s still alive, and a lot of time is spent talking about him even though nothing ever comes of it. Later in the book, Louis and Claudia take a side trip to Eastern Europe,* where they meet a different type of vampire that resembles a zombie. This seems like a big deal, but it never comes to anything and isn’t explained.

However much filler you think the novel has, I promise there’s more. This is where the movie gives us its first major improvement: all that filler is gone. It turns out we don’t need an elaborate brother backstory; we can just say Louis’s family is dead and he’s depressed over it. Lestat doesn’t have a father because there’s no reason for him to, other than muddling his backstory. And while the movie does mention Louis and Claudia traveling around Europe, this is mostly skipped over, and they certainly don’t run into any zombie vampires. I can imagine the filmmakers wondering why Anne Rice put it in there if she didn’t want to do anything with it.

I could go on. The film cuts scene after scene in order to make the movie fit in a two-hour time slot. And yet, it doesn’t feel like they cut anything at all. All the important parts from the book are still there, from Louis’s transformation to the burning of Pointe du Lac to the entire theater sequence. The plot is identical in both versions of the story, despite all the cut content. If I hadn’t just finished the book a few days ago, I might not have noticed anything was missing.

This strength is pretty common in film adaptations, because the time constraints of a film pressure filmmakers to keep the story tight. You can see this in films like The Lord of the Rings and even TV shows like The Expanse.* This strength carries an important lesson for novelists: stories should only ever be as long as they need to be. Anything else is wasting the readers’ time. Cutting all of Interview’s filler would have made the book significantly shorter, but that’s a good thing.

Strength: Stronger Initial Conflict

Louis hugging Claudia

Another significant issue with Interview as a novel is Louis’s internal conflict. Namely, what is it? I know he has one because the book goes on and on about it, but I don’t know what it’s about. At first, I assumed his conflict was over whether or not he should kill humans and drink their blood. That seems like the obvious choice, but nothing about this book is obvious. Instead, Louis claims that his choice not to kill humans was actually aesthetic rather than moral. He backs this up later in the book by killing a lot of humans while still claiming that he’s very conflicted about something.

Neither is it clear why Louis would kill humans in the first place, since he can live on animal blood without any problems. Rice further muddies the issue by injecting paragraph after paragraph of half-baked philosophy into the text, until it seems like Louis is only upset because he has ennui. That’s hardly a compelling motivation, so it’s difficult to sympathize with Louis when he whines about how miserable he is for a dozen pages straight. No wonder Lestat is the series star going forward, despite being portrayed as an abusive jerk in this book.

For a second time, the movie is here to save us. In this version, it’s clear from the start that Louis’s internal conflict is over killing humans. We also see why he’s driven to kill humans in the first place: while it’s possible to survive on animal blood, it’s a miserable experience. Now we have an actual conflict: on the one hand, Louis knows that killing is wrong. On the other hand, by refusing to kill, he’s doomed to a painful half-life.

In this scenario, Lestat plays the role of dark tempter. He’s always there, urging Louis to kill – it’ll taste so good, and what’s a little human life compared to immortality anyway? This is a straightforward conflict that’s easy to invest in, and it doesn’t require navigating the labyrinth of Rice’s musings on the value of passion and aesthetics, whatever that means. In the film, Louis’s arc even has a clear end point: when Lestat turns Claudia, Louis embraces human blood so he can be a better vampire dad. It’s a dark ending, but that fits with the dark story.

Strength: More Likable Characters

Lestat standing next to two candelabras.

In the book, Louis is a difficult character to like. He reads like a parody of the angsty vampire trope, constantly whining about how tormented he is while also murdering people every evening. It’s not enough to kill people; he also demands we feel bad for him while he’s doing it. The only thing less likable than a murderer is a sanctimonious murderer, so this doesn’t work out.

The film does a lot of work to make Louis sympathetic. When he’s tormented, it’s because he’s stopping himself from killing humans rather than killing them and then complaining. This is actually compelling, and I’m honestly surprised Rice didn’t think of it. It also helps that the film portrays Louis’s relationship with Claudia as one between parent and child, where the book calls them lovers before Claudia is even aged up in the time jump. Blech. Yes, the book later clarifies that they don’t actually have sex, but it’s clear Rice wants you to think of their relationship as incestuous.

Despite all the improvements to Louis, it’s Lestat who benefits most in the likability department. In the book, Lestat is nothing more than an unstable, abusive jerk. He’s cruel to everyone around him, including Louis. We’re told he can be charming and suave, but he almost never comes across that way. Instead, he continuously demonstrates a comical level of ineptitude, like forgetting to get a second coffin for Louis or neglecting to teach hunting techniques. His antics often feel like they’d be more at home in What We Do In the Shadows than a serious story about undead angst.

Movie Lestat is almost a completely different character. Some of that no doubt comes down to Tom Cruise’s acting,* but the writing is also different. Since Louis’s arc is now about killing humans, the story no longer needs Lestat to be an abuser. Instead, he’s the dark master of the night, tempting Louis to abandon all moral scruples and being a general badass. The movie even takes the time to show us that Lestat prefers to feed on aristocrats, starting with a woman who had a slave tortured to death. Compare that to the book, where Lestat’s first victims are runaway slaves.

Even though the film’s version of Lestat is radically different than the book’s, it actually works better with Rice’s later ideas for him. Looking at just the novel, it’s bewildering that a pathetic abuser like Lestat eventually becomes the prince of all vampires. In the movie, I can believe it.

Weakness: A Less Credible Plot

Lestat holding Claudia's hand.

I’ve piled a lot of praise on the film for how it portrays Lestat, but it does come with a downside. In the book, Louis and Claudia want to split from Lestat because he’s abusive toward both of them. This even drives Claudia to make an attempt on Lestat’s life, further torturing Louis. In the film, this scene still happens, but it comes mostly out of nowhere.

Remember, Movie Lestat’s role is dark tempter, not abuser. That works fine for the first part of the story, but once Louis decides to feed on humans, there’s no longer any conflict between them. Instead, we’re told everything is great for 30 years, until Lestat and Claudia have a falling out that lasts maybe 2-3 scenes. This time, Claudia’s entire motivation is that Lestat turned her as a child, so she can never have an adult body.

That provides some conflict, but it’s not enough for murder. In the book, Claudia tries to kill Lestat so she and Louis can get away. In the film, Lestat’s death won’t help Claudia with her problem, so I guess she’s just mad. To confuse things further, Claudia still has some dialogue about how Lestat will never let them leave, which the film doesn’t actually show us.

If Claudia’s motivation is weak, Louis’s is nonexistent. He seems perfectly happy with Lestat, so it’s extremely jarring when he doesn’t try to intervene in Claudia’s attack. Later, when Lestat returns, Louis jumps right to using deadly force, which also feels out of character. It’s like an entirely different character is swapped in during those scenes so that the movie can mirror the book’s plot, even though that plot no longer fits.

Weakness: Flimsier Motivation

Louis sheltering Claudia from the attentions of other vampires.

If you thought the split with Lestat was weak, Louis and Claudia’s search for other vampires is even worse. Granted, it’s weak in the book too. There, neither of them have a clear reason for seeking out others of their kind, but Rice covers it up with page after page of Louis’s internal monologue. He’s still super angsty by this point in the book, though it’s not clear over what, so Rice has him go on about how other vampires will be able to give him “answers” that will help. What he imagines those answers might be is a mystery.

The film doesn’t even have this flimsy justification. Instead, Claudia and Louis seem to set out on their quest because that’s what it says to do in the script. This is an odd choice since they just killed the only other vampire they knew, and it doesn’t take a great leap to imagine that might be frowned on in vampire society. The only upside is that we mercifully skip the side trip to Eastern Europe and cut directly to arriving in Paris.

This is where we meet the theater troupe vampires, and again, it suffers from poor motivation. In the book, Rice uses Louis’s narration to tell us how he’s drawn to the 400-year-old Armond for vague and difficult to understand reasons. Once again, it’s mostly about getting “answers.” For Armond’s part, he is drawn to Louis as a way to escape immortal boredom, which is apparently a big killer of vampires. For some reason, Louis is supposed to be a representative of the current age, even though he must be pushing 100 by then.

The movie doesn’t have any of this because it lacks Louis’s internal narration. Louis does provide some voice-over narration, much more than in most movies, but it’s not nearly enough. So when Claudia thinks that Louis is going to leave her for Armond, it’s difficult to see why. Louis doesn’t even seem to like Armond that much.

This is a major problem with the movie, but it also exposes a flaw with the book. Louis never has a consistent motivation, so Rice has to paper over it with lots of internal monologuing and hope no one notices. A stronger motivation would have been much easier to adapt and made the novel better at the same time.

Weakness: The Resolution Doesn’t Fit

Lestat at the end of Interview with the Vampire compared to Lestat at the beginning.

In the novel, Louis’s journey resolves when he pays a visit to Lestat, who has become a paranoid shut-in since Louis left. It’s not clear why, but Lestat is now unable to hunt humans, instead subsisting on animals. Having escaped an abusive relationship, Louis gets to take a final victory lap around his abuser, who is nothing without him.

The movie has a similar scene, with Lestat weak and grotesque from the lack of human blood, while Louis is dressed in the finest 1980s fashion. There’s just one problem: Lestat isn’t Louis’s abuser in this version. Now that Louis has accepted feeding on humans, there’s no significant conflict between them. Lestat doesn’t even have anything to do with Claudia’s death like he does in the book. But Louis still plays this like he’s looking piteously on an old enemy instead of someone he claimed to live happily with for decades.

It gets weirder from there. In both versions, once Louis finishes recounting his story to a human reporter,* the reporter immediately demands to be made into a vampire. It’s not clear why he wants this; I think Rice just overestimates how much the average person wants to become a murderous monster. Louis refuses, and that’s where the versions diverge.

In the book, the reporter heads to Lestat’s last known address, presumably for another shot at becoming a vampire. In the film, Lestat ambushes the reporter instead. Lestat still has the sickly look of only feeding upon animals, which raises a host of questions. Most immediately, how did Lestat get there? Last we saw him, he was in New Orleans, and the interview happens in San Francisco. Somehow, Lestat overcame his agoraphobia and inability to hunt humans, but still only fed on animals while following Louis across most of the country?

This is incredibly jarring, and it breaks the basic rule of putting all changes to the plot’s trajectory onscreen. I assume it was an attempt to set up Lestat as the protagonist of future movies that were never produced,* but it makes no sense in context.


Unlike some book nerds, I typically get excited when one of my favorite novels is adapted into a film. It’s a chance to see the strengths of a different medium in action, and also an opportunity to fix problems with the original story. Granted, I’m disappointed as often as not, but that’s generally the case with novels too. Interview With the Vampire provides both outcomes at the same time: I love the strengthening of Louis’s internal conflict and Lestat’s more charming demeanor, but I also spent the second half of the film asking why anyone is doing anything.

Oh, and both versions contain remarkably racist portrayals of enslaved Black people. If we ever get another film adaptation, I’m hoping they put fixing the racism at the top of their to-do list.

P.S. Our bills are paid by our wonderful patrons. Could you chip in?

Read more about

 

Comments

  1. Cay Reet

    That’s a very good look at all the strengths and weaknesses of “Interview With The Vampire” – both the book and the movie.

    It’s been ages since I’ve seen or read either, admittedly, but I still remember thinking that I could just have flipped a couple of pages (or a couple more) in many cases and wouldn’t have missed out on the story as a such. So much internal dialogue, so much filler…

    Louis is a strange character to me. He wasn’t the first angsty vampire I saw (that was Nick Knight from the TV series “Forever Knight” which I saw before the movie it was based on). Nick handled the whole topic much better in my opinion (as did Angel later one).
    I think the problem is that Louis has decided to die on a hill which just isn’t working for a vampire. Yes, I can see how the idea of killing humans to stay alive is horrible for a new vampire – normally, though, I’d expect a vampire simply to refuse feeding and seek out the sun instead of going on for centuries about how horrid it is. Either that or get over it and start draining humans for blood. Louis could simply have killed himself instead of angsting about killing humans for so long. Or he could have tried to drink from several a night (not sure if it works for Rice’s vampires – in some stories, they ‘drink death’ and have to kill, in others, they merely need blood). Or he could, indeed, have stuck with animals, Lestat be damned.

    What I find interesting is that in the book version Armand (I think that’s how it’s written, but I have read the German translation and it has been ages, but the name makes more sense for me that way) is actually eternally 13 – which puts him in a similar situation as Claudia, both are internally adult, but forever taken as children. Naturally, they didn’t want to keep it like that for the movie with Louis being interested in him…

    • E. H.

      I’m a big fan of Rice’s original trilogy but yes the sheer amount of killing gets to be a bit much. Often one or more person a night for centuries. Doesn’t even seem possible on a practical level. I’m glad this level of disrespect for human life was challenged in later sympathetic vampire fiction.

      I think it works for her especially in Interview because the story explores the themes of life without a system of meaning or moral order. Louis is horrified that there isn’t a “point” to vampires. He just IS, Lestat can’t or won’t teach him much, it takes him years to manage contact other vampires. Claudia is less experienced than he is of course.

      I like the parts where he (and Lestat before him I think; maybe to a lesser extent) would actually prefer to be traditional vampires serving the Devil. At least they’d have some sort of place in the universe.

      They probably can’t just kill themselves because it’s so difficult. Much more than for a human. They’re incredibly hard to kill and starving is very long and painful. I could be wrong but I got the feeling it was hard for them physically to go too long with only animal blood.

      An interesting thing about Armand’s backstory is we find most Western vampires of his earlier era actually had once belonged to a Satanic cult in which they believed that Satan served God and they served Him through Satan.

      Thus they were required to follow a lot of rules about who they could attack and respect holy symbols and holy ground. But they found this was an illusion largely due to Lestat’s success at becoming the “modern” gentleman vampire in a nice suit who goes to the opera.

      • Cay Reet

        Serving Satan gave them purpose, even if it came with self-imposed limits (holy symbols/holy ground), so I can see why it worked well to keep them in check.

        The sun rises every day and we see it demonstrated on Claudia that it definitely and inevitably kills vampires, so killing themselves is not that hard. Painful, yes, but not hard. If you’re horrified enough of killing every night, it would be an option.

        If you calculate it through, vampires kill an awful lot of the populace, which means they would have eradicated complete villages in the past. I think Rice went over the top with that point – whether it was because it was Louis’ big grief with vampirehood and she wanted to show how horrible it was or whether she didn’t really think about it, I can’t say.

        In classic vampire stories, there’s few vampires around and in many, vampires don’t seem to feed daily (or nightly), which means there’s less prey necessary. Many more modern stories step away from killing and have the vampires keep humans they drink from regularly – which comes with another kind of moral problem, since you’re basically enslaving those humans, but explains why nobody gets suspicious because of all those deaths and disappearances.

    • SunlessNick

      Not only was Nick more interesting than Louis, LaCroix was more interesting than Lestat. (I always found Lestat ten times the whiner that Louis was, it just came with less fauxlosophy).

      • Cay Reet

        True.

        Nick wanted to be human again, but he wasn’t going around moping … he was helping humans while looking for a possible cure for vampirism.

        LaCroix is still my one of favourite villains. He was competent, intelligent, and did sometimes even do the right thing because it served his purprose.

        With Jeanette (I think?), we had the middle ground in vampirism, too, between ‘good vampire’ Nick and ‘villain vampire’ LaCroix.

  2. Lexy

    “Instead, the most immediate problem is all the filler. So. Much. Damn. Filler.”

    This right here, is why I quit reading this book halfway through in middle school. X’D I remember my friend who recommended it to me being like “No, but keep reading it gets better” and I was like “Nah I’m bored out of my mind, sorry.”

    And now, being aware of all the glaring problems with the story, I don’t feel so bad about never finishing it and I’m quite confused how a story with such unlikable characters, problematic aspects and flimsy plot could become so popular, but anyhow, it was great to see you critique it instead of treating it like The Vampire Story Bible like so many other people do!

    There’s very few movie adaptations I like better, or as much as the book(s) (I think The Giver movie is literally the only movie adaptation that was EXACTLY like the book and I was amazed and also, The Series of Unfortunate Events movie with Jim Carrey deserves an honorable mention and LOTR ofc), but, The Vampire Diaries is the perfect TV show example of the adaptation being light years better than the books. I didn’t find out the Vampire Diaries was based on books until after I had watched the first season and omg, I was so horrified at how completely different and horrible the characters were in the book that I think I only got a few chapters in!! They completely revamped (haha) the characters in the show to make them so much better, thank goodness. Not perfect, but at least super likable.

    Anyhow, that’s enough babbling from me, happy new year!!! :D/

    • Oren Ashkenazi

      Happy new year! As to why Interview is so popular, my guess would be that it came out in a time when there was a lot less vampire fiction to choose from, and so it looked a lot better by comparison. It would hardly be the only mediocre book to achieve massive popularity due to circumstances beyond its writing quality. Dune and The Name of the Wind come to mind.

      • Lexy

        Truuuue, and now, sadly, there’s plenty of them, which are also mostly awful, like Twilight. :’D Such a shame really, but luckily the trend has died now.

      • Chris Winkle

        I don’t know that this is fair. Interview’s portrait into the experience of being a vampire was innovative and novel for its time, which is a positive quality of the writing itself and demonstrates author creativity. It’s just a strength that doesn’t mean much to readers today, largely because it was so successful, it became much less unique as it was imitated.

    • SunlessNick

      Also, and related to so-much-damn-filler, the first few seasons of the Vampire Diaries show were veritable masterclasses in how to get a lot of plot done in good time.

  3. Adam

    I enjoyed The 13th Warrior, Jurassic Park, and, well, pretty much all Michael Crichton movies better than his books for all the reasons you give here. Lord of the Rings, too. Awesome movies, boring books. Sometimes (rarely) movies do it better!

Leave a Comment

Please see our comments policy (updated 03/28/20) and our privacy policy for details on how we moderate comments and who receives your information.