The Sword and Laser discussion

There have already been some comments about adaptations in other threads but I wanted to create a new thread to compare and contrast how this book has been adapted for the big and small screen.

There have been two notable adaptations of this book: the movie back in 1994 which starred Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, a young Kirsten Dunst, Christian Slater, and Antonio Banderas, and the ongoing AMC TV series starring Sam Reid and Jacob Anderson.

The 1994 film was scripted by Anne Rice herself and unsurprisingly sticks to the book closely in most respects -- the biggest deviation iirc is that the backstory about Louis' brother and his religious mania is axed in favour of a much more generic backstory about a dead wife and child. The film does a good job of condensing the book's sprawling story into a manageable runtime. The performances are mixed imho with Brad Pitt a bit wooden as Louis (also he has a terrible wig) and Tom Cruise mesmerising as Lestat (also he has a much better wig).

The film was a favourite of mine in my 90s Goth days and I re-watched it recently with some friends - it stood up pretty well I thought. My personal favourite moment is when, at the end (view spoiler)[ Lestat shows up in Daniel Molloy's car as he's driving over the Golden Gate bridge, drinks his blood, takes over driving the car, hears the interview tape playing on the car stereo, comments 'Oh Louis, Louis, still whining, Louis. Have you heard enough? I've been listening to that for centuries', and switches over to Guns N' Roses playing 'Sympathy for the Devil'. Iconic. (hide spoiler)]

The recent TV show takes a very different approach. Instead of being an 18th-century plantation (and slave) owner, Louis is an early twentieth century brothel owner. He's also Creole (ie mixed race) instead of white. This gives a much more interesting depth to his human background and his relationship with wealthy French tourist Lestat. While this is a big difference from the book, the show does keep the subplot about his brother.

Other changes include that Claudia is now older and also Creole, and the interview structure is different -- there are two interviews, an older one done in the 1970s and a revisited one done in 2022. Daniel Molloy is also much more of an assertive character in the TV show, challenging Louis' inconsistencies. The queer subtext is also made fully text, although that's a difference of style rather than substance imho.

The new TV version has consistently good performances and a clever structure, although I for one found its pacing very slow -- the curse of the modern made-for-streaming TV show. The story felt very stretched out to me, with the first novel taking up two whole seasons of the show. Anyway, it makes an interesting contrast to the earlier movie, and I can't help wondering what Anne Rice would have made of it (I believe she was involved at the early stages but died before filming began).

what do you all think of the film and TV show?

I honestly don't much recall the movie and haven't made any effort to watch it again. But honestly, that's probably more because of everything that's become public about Cruise and Pitt since then. I'm just can't muster much desire to rewatch a film with the two of them as its stars. I don't recall disliking anything about the movie but it never became a personal favorite of mine.

Rice had regained the film rights to Interview (or the Vampire Chronicles) in the mid-2010s sometime. I remember reading about it and it had been a struggle for her. "Producer" and "Executive Producer" in credits can mean everything from no real involvement but getting money from the credit to financial support to creative input to a title given to actual writers. It's impossible to tell from the credit alone how much involvement someone has. If they had simply bought the rights and there was no involvement at all that doesn't usually include producer credit.

Rice clearly trusted AMC when she sold them the rights in 2020 after working so long to regain them. I love the changes to Louis and the framing around interviews with in the present with Daniel. And the actors are amazing. I think aging Claudia loses something in the story but that could also have a practical aspect when filming a series since young child actors especially do introduce a lot of other requirements and restrictions. Although Claudia was aged to 14 in the series, both actors playing her have been adults.

Claudia is really the one somewhat sour note I have with the series since 5 year old (physically) Claudia made such an early and strong impression on me. But I have no objection to the writing or portrayal of the version of Claudia. Louis' story is, in my opinion, enhanced and strengthened by the changes to his character but he's still at his core the same character. I enjoy watching the version of Claudia in the series, but it's really not the same character at all as the one in the book.

I remember seeing the movie on opening day and enjoying it but haven't seen it since.

I really like the TV show. I think they've done a great job adapting the novel and can't wait for season three (they'll be adapting The Vampire Lestat.)

Scott wrote: Claudia is really the one somewhat sour note I have with the series since 5 year old (physically) Claudia made such an early and strong impression on me...."

I suspect that the ageing-up of Claudia was done for practical reasons to avoid a) having to deal with the restrictions around child actors; and b) having to recast the role because the child actor grew up too much between seasons. Although they ended up having to recast the role anyway because of scheduling conflicts so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ In any case, having a teenage Claudia enables them to explore slightly different themes and storylines, so it’s not a bad change per se, but it does definitely reduce the impact of having a small, apparently helpless child as a blood-sucking monster.

Ruth wrote: "There have already been some comments about adaptations in other threads but I wanted to create a new thread to compare and contrast how this book has been adapted for the big and small screen.

Th..."

I really want to watch the show but afraid if it's the same or worse than the Mayfair Witches one which was really bad and should not have been adapted. But I guess I will try nonetheless.

The Interview adaptation is leaps and bounds better than the Mayfair Witches.

Ruth wrote: "Scott wrote: Claudia is really the one somewhat sour note I have with the series since 5 year old (physically) Claudia made such an early and strong impression on me...."

I suspect that the ageing-up of Claudia was done for practical reasons to avoid a) having to deal with the restrictions around child actors; and b) having to recast the role because the child actor grew up too much between seasons...."

Definitely. Although just yesterday on Instagram I saw a girl who’s 18 but looks 11, and I was reminded of that one actor who seemed to be eternally young. I can’t recall his name at the moment but he was in a few TV shows. I wonder how many people like that are out there who could play child vampires.

Chris K. wrote: "The Interview adaptation is leaps and bounds better than the Mayfair Witches."

thank goodness, now it's on netflix I will give it a go!