Interview With A Vampire

I thought the class discussion on Interview with a Vampire led us to some very interesting ideas about vampires associated with the novel and the film. First, we thought of words most commonly used to describe vampires, such as seductive, dangerous yet delicate, mysterious, lustful, unknown and alluring. We agreed that vampires are thought of as sneaky, blood-thirsty, life-sucking villains that will stop at nothing to get what they want from you. They have a certain seduction about them in that they need you and your blood for their very survival; if compared to a modern relationship the vampire would hypothetically be the addicted, codependent one. There is a mystery about vampires that causes one to ask whether or not we should feel bad for them because they are perpetual outsiders forbidden to have a daily existence. However, then we realize, for a minute we let our emotional side control our mental side which led us to forget that they mercilessly kill people, or even worse turn them into the terrible beings that they are.
I thought it was very interesting when we came to the idea that perhaps Lestat made Louis a vampire to have a companion, that he felt this companion would help him to transfer his repressed sexual desire to blood desire.
I liked reading the novel and seeing the film through the eyes of the vampire. I did not have trouble identifying with Louis. In the film, Louis was shown agreeing to become a vampire at a very vulnerable state which immediately made me feel that the situation was not under his control. Even though he later became a real vampire and killed humans for his survival he had no choice; he was stuck as this monster and he had to do what he had to do. I felt bad that Louis could not embrace his love interest for fear that he would want to suck her blood. He cared for another by demonstrating a deep love for Claudia as his daughter. He felt he was in a love/hate relationship with Lestat, who was his companion, but who was also the one responsible for making him the monster that he was; he was forced to stay bonded to him.
One last thing I found interesting in our discussion was our realization that in the novel Louis’ brother dies and in the film version Louis’ wife dies. The novel seemed accurate for the late 1700’s in that he would have a close bond with his brother who he cared for and idolized. Also, it would make perfect sense because Lestat’s character would replace his brother as a companion. However, the film makes it so his wife dies in childbirth. We thought of several reasons as to why this change might have been implemented. If his wife dies during childbirth it demonstrates that he is a devoted family man; it is more of a sorrow/sad story, very Hollywood; it makes for a more modem movie; it makes him seem human, we feel sorry for him because he has no one; and it portrays a straight and “normal” trajectory to be identified with.
In all, I enjoyed the class discussion and I especially liked the film.