Anne Rice was famous for not liking fan stories. In the early 2000s, the famous writer posted a message on her website Ban all fans, writing, “I don’t allow fan literature. Characters are copyrighted. It’s very annoying to even think of fan stories with my characters.” There were even allegations at the time that Rice’s legal counsel had accessed websites, fan writers with cease and desist notices, and even fanfiction.net, at one point, removing an entire category of novels based on Rice’s books from their site. At the request of the author, much to the chagrin of fans who enjoyed reading and writing re-imaginings of her stories and characters. Now, on October 2, AMC will be launching a new TV series based on Rice Interview with the vampire And while it may seem a little strange to talk about Rice’s decades-long disdain for fan literature and an official adaptation of her work at the same time, the truth is: AMC’s Interview with the vampire He’s in his own right a fan of the highly offbeat live-action, but it holds great promise that honors the themes of the original work.
Before jumping into the review itself, one has to address a key point: fans of Rice’s novel who enter the AMC series may be disappointed thinking they’re getting a book adaptation. As the teasers and trailers suggest, this series only maintains the slightest resemblance to the novel. We have the characters sharing the names of those in the book who happen to be vampires, and the story takes place centrally in New Orleans, but almost every other detail of the story has changed drastically. The timeline varies, the ages of the main characters – specifically the “children’s vampire” Claudia and the “little reporter” Daniel Molloy – are very different, and the backgrounds and histories of other characters are completely different, namely for Lewis. The string, in almost every sense of the word, is “what if?” A copy of an interview – They are original creations in many ways.
If Rice fans can get past that and put aside expectations of a true adaptation, what remains is an engaging and surprisingly human story, one with potential albeit not one without some challenges. Lewis, a century-old vampire played by Jacob Anderson, tells his life story to an elderly journalist, Daniel Molloy (played by Eric Bogosian). The story, done in interview form, is presented as a second attempt of sorts – the series references the idea that, in this novel, the real-world novel was the first interview decades ago making this new novel a sequel of sorts. As the interview takes place in the present, Lewis’s story is set in New Orleans at the turn of the 20th century as we see him grappling with not only being a black man trying to provide for his family during that time, but also a closed gay man working in the city’s least adorable business. As part of this struggle, he encounters the shattered and mysterious Lestat (Sam Reed), who turns out to be a vampire who simultaneously enables Lewis to be his true self and also becomes his aggressor, in a sense, when he turns him into a vampire.
The thing that jumps with the series, outside of its extraordinarily lavish and beautiful combinations, is that the series’ story, while far from the book, is intriguing and has a huge advantage over previous adaptations. because rice Vampire Chronicles It’s now a complete series, something that wasn’t the case when the most famous adaptation of the material was made (the 1994 movie starring Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt), there’s more material to draw from in terms of characterization. In the case of Reid’s Lestat, this works brilliantly. Reed brings to life a Lestat who feels like he walked out of the pages of Rice novels and feels so complete and feels like a whole person, even through Lewis’ one-sided and somewhat biased memories. His performance was intoxicating, although you know Lestat is the “villain” in Lewis’ story. Simply put, RED is the perfect Lestat. The new approach to characterization also works, albeit to a lesser degree, for Lewis, who seems more complex and a touch less frustrating than in Rice’s novel. Unfortunately, by compressing the timeline between the role of vampire Louis and his spoken interview to just over a century later than the book’s many centuries, almost none of this character feels natural and learned. Anderson does a good job playing a deeply tormented human Lewis and a great job playing a more emotional and distant vampire Lewis who struggles with his own story, but the two shows feel very disconnected—a flaw in the show’s storytelling choices, not the acting. Anderson brings a horror to modern Lewis that does not necessarily appear in Rice’s novel and is beautiful.
However, there are some errors in the similarly complex series selections. The tendency to Lewis’s eccentricity as the primary source of his suffering—in the book, the death of his deeply religious but lovable brother is the source of Lewis’s agony—allows the series to be the ultimate implementation of the novel’s enduring strange undertones, but at times complicates and undermines it by wrapping it in a predator/prey dynamic. While there’s no denying the chemistry between Reed and Anderson like these two men are, it’s undeniable that their relationship is toxic, and at times it feels escalating in regards to the drama. There is also the matter of the two characters whose ages have been messed up. Claudia has (and necessarily) grown up in this adaptation, and while Billy Bass delivers what may be the series’ best performance, the writing still, at times, makes it childish as if the character never grew up. As for Daniel Molloy, the character is essentially an original creation unlike his novel counterpart, and while Boghossian is a wonderful actor (and as an older Daniel struggling with his own life’s problems, he’s a perfect pick-me-up), his work here feels a little flat in some Sometimes, though, there is certainly room for expansion as the series and story progresses, which is evident in the five episodes (out of seven) available for review.
However, even with the individual changes to the story that didn’t quite happen, an interview heady. Visually, this is a very high output packed with beautiful detail and rich visuals. There’s the eroticism in the series that goes beyond the weirdness of its presentation and the “sexy vampire” in it all, and while there’s a great deal of violence and a lot of blood – this is a vampire story, after all – it’s never free. Instead, there is this rapid pulse of danger and intrigue that leads the viewer to abandon their concerns about all the above issues and succumb to the temptation of these flawed characters, this city, this darkness. It’s enough to keep viewers, even the most skeptical, hooked and might send those unfamiliar with Rice’s gothic horror run straight to bookstores for more. It’s a complex series with just about everything possible and as such, the series represents a great deal of promise and potential. You have a sense that this is a story that wants you to come along on a long journey and creates space for you to settle down to do so.
Yes, Rice hated the fan stories and AMC movies Interview with the vampire She is pretty much a live version of that, something that is sure to piss off many ardent fans of her work. But the series is not without seductive charm. Between great visual details and some really great performances, the series offers a unique interpretation of the larger themes of Rice’s stories, and while she doesn’t get everything right in the first few episodes, there is room for growth and it’s worth growing with her. This series won’t be for everyone, but it certainly has a great impact.
Rating: 3.5 out of 5
Anne Rice interview with the vampire Premieres on AMC on October 2nd.
.
[ad_2]
