QotD movie FAQ, part 2
Feb. 4th, 2012 06:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
forgottenbennetTHE EVOLUTION OF THE SCRIPT: ADAPTING THE BOOK FOR THE SCREEN
The film story changed the most from the start in our first story meetings in 1998; it didn't change all that much subsequently. From the beginning, we felt that we would have to rewrite the "guts" of the story, because they wouldn't possibly fit into the length of a typical feature film. We didn't film THE VAMPIRE LESTAT first because it was even harder for us to find a narrative spine that made sense for a 120-minute movie. It could be argued quite well that the way to do full justice to Anne Rice's second and third vampire novels is to film them as a mini-series. However, this was not our mandate.
There is no way to replicate either the facts or the greatness of the Vampire Chronicles in a feature film. A mini-series might be a different story. But movies by necessity tell tales in a very different way. The necessity of veering from the text leads to unavoidable compromises and the occasional inspired moment of originality. I hope that in the end, you feel that the scales tilt in the right direction. We will always have Anne Rice's books. The movie is, in many respects, something different.
I don't mind responding to thoughtful criticism, but there's no point to replying to posts along the lines of "Your movie sucks and you should burn in hell because Tom Cruise and Louis aren't in it."
Answering as best I can, Louis is not in the movie because his role in the novel QUEEN is relatively insignificant and we could only include so many characters. The liberties we took in the making of this film were a combination of necessity — a feature film is only so long — and creative license, which in my opinion is the right of anyone engaged in any creative activity. Lestat looks "gothie" because, as you may recall from the novels, his music was "Goth." I can't imagine how one could compare... let alone duplicate... the mood of a novel with the mood of a movie.
Anne Rice's books have been extremely popular from the moment she published her first one... but never mind that. Louis is not included, because dropping him is a very minor storyline change — he barely figures in the novel. We realize that any changes at all to the novel's story will prove disappointing to hard-core fans. The complexity of the novel and the limits of a feature film's running time... not to mention structural issues... required major changes and deletions to the novel's story in its transition to film. The hard-core fan will have to let go of a lot of preconceptions, or miss what we have to offer due to focusing on what we don't.
I could add that someone needing to have read the second book in order to understand the third, has nothing to do with needing to have read either in order to understand the movie. While the movie has many details that will resonate only with Anne Rice's fans, it can be enjoyed with no exposure to either of the books, or the first movie.
My advice is to read the book after you see the movie. This would apply to any adaptation. You want the funnel to widen, not narrow.
Marius makes Lestat for the sake of economy. It happens to work extremely well from a character-motivation point of view. Marius also made Armand in our movie, but it's not relevant to the story (as it wasn't in the novel).
I agree that this is an issue of creative freedom, combined with various real-world limitations. My suspicion is that most of the people who object to any changes lack creative vision, and therefore "lock in" on what engages their imagination: in this case, Anne Rice's very creative novels. While many of them feel, quite understandably, that Lestat belongs to them, as alive as he is in their imagination, they cannot comprehend that a filmmaker does the same thing... and has the mandate and the vision to do something different with it. That's what creativity is: starting with something, adding something of your own, and ending up with something different... maybe better, maybe not.
We changed who made Lestat because we couldn't keep every character, and Marius is a terrific substitute. I don't think that the Lestat you'll see on the screen would behave differently at any point if he had been made by Magnus, and then abandoned... because something very similar happens here. I have little doubt that this won't satisfy you, but thought I'd let you know what the basic thought process was behind our decision.
On Lestat and Jesse
In the novel, Akasha and Lestat don't hook up until near the end. We needed a human character to both be the audience's way into the movie, and someone besides Marius with whom Lestat could have a dynamic. In a feature-length story, characters often have to do double duty.
Let me clarify that in our movie, Lestat and Jesse do not mirror Romeo and Juliet, although they do share some similarities. I agree that Lestat is much less likely to fall for Jesse than she with him. However, certain aspects of her could intrigue him, maybe even remind him of what makes humans special... and then fate or circumstances could bring them together in a way that he would never have predicted. The story is seen from the point of view of Lestat (the vampire) and to a lesser degree Jesse (the human), with a great deal of gap-bridging provided by Marius.
Focusing the Movie on Lestat
The Story of the Twins is a movie in its own right; if we told that story, we wouldn't have room for Lestat's. We felt that focusing the movie on Lestat was the more pragmatic way to go. With less than two hours to work with, this meant no Story of the Twins. We kept Maharet, but only in how she connects to our main story. This is one of those changes that was all but dictated by the constraints of our situation, but that I realize is painful to all lovers of the book. You have our sincere apologies for not being able to give you everything that you wanted.
Many characters (Louis, Daniel, Gabrielle, Mekare, Eric) are not in the story. There isn't enough room for all of the vampires, and their roles seemed less crucial to the telling of our story. If you're seeking a connection to INTERVIEW, then you ought to find it in Lestat.
Gabrielle is a very interesting character, but not essential to the novel, and irrelevant to the parts of the novel that we focused on.
Louis and Daniel aren't in the movie because, they don't have a meaningful role in the story. Armand is in the movie, but only briefly. And I can't talk about Jesse's fate without giving away too much; suffice it to say that, given the nature of our story, our ending makes more sense.
The film story changed the most from the start in our first story meetings in 1998; it didn't change all that much subsequently. From the beginning, we felt that we would have to rewrite the "guts" of the story, because they wouldn't possibly fit into the length of a typical feature film. We didn't film THE VAMPIRE LESTAT first because it was even harder for us to find a narrative spine that made sense for a 120-minute movie. It could be argued quite well that the way to do full justice to Anne Rice's second and third vampire novels is to film them as a mini-series. However, this was not our mandate.
There is no way to replicate either the facts or the greatness of the Vampire Chronicles in a feature film. A mini-series might be a different story. But movies by necessity tell tales in a very different way. The necessity of veering from the text leads to unavoidable compromises and the occasional inspired moment of originality. I hope that in the end, you feel that the scales tilt in the right direction. We will always have Anne Rice's books. The movie is, in many respects, something different.
I don't mind responding to thoughtful criticism, but there's no point to replying to posts along the lines of "Your movie sucks and you should burn in hell because Tom Cruise and Louis aren't in it."
Answering as best I can, Louis is not in the movie because his role in the novel QUEEN is relatively insignificant and we could only include so many characters. The liberties we took in the making of this film were a combination of necessity — a feature film is only so long — and creative license, which in my opinion is the right of anyone engaged in any creative activity. Lestat looks "gothie" because, as you may recall from the novels, his music was "Goth." I can't imagine how one could compare... let alone duplicate... the mood of a novel with the mood of a movie.
Anne Rice's books have been extremely popular from the moment she published her first one... but never mind that. Louis is not included, because dropping him is a very minor storyline change — he barely figures in the novel. We realize that any changes at all to the novel's story will prove disappointing to hard-core fans. The complexity of the novel and the limits of a feature film's running time... not to mention structural issues... required major changes and deletions to the novel's story in its transition to film. The hard-core fan will have to let go of a lot of preconceptions, or miss what we have to offer due to focusing on what we don't.
I could add that someone needing to have read the second book in order to understand the third, has nothing to do with needing to have read either in order to understand the movie. While the movie has many details that will resonate only with Anne Rice's fans, it can be enjoyed with no exposure to either of the books, or the first movie.
My advice is to read the book after you see the movie. This would apply to any adaptation. You want the funnel to widen, not narrow.
Marius makes Lestat for the sake of economy. It happens to work extremely well from a character-motivation point of view. Marius also made Armand in our movie, but it's not relevant to the story (as it wasn't in the novel).
I agree that this is an issue of creative freedom, combined with various real-world limitations. My suspicion is that most of the people who object to any changes lack creative vision, and therefore "lock in" on what engages their imagination: in this case, Anne Rice's very creative novels. While many of them feel, quite understandably, that Lestat belongs to them, as alive as he is in their imagination, they cannot comprehend that a filmmaker does the same thing... and has the mandate and the vision to do something different with it. That's what creativity is: starting with something, adding something of your own, and ending up with something different... maybe better, maybe not.
We changed who made Lestat because we couldn't keep every character, and Marius is a terrific substitute. I don't think that the Lestat you'll see on the screen would behave differently at any point if he had been made by Magnus, and then abandoned... because something very similar happens here. I have little doubt that this won't satisfy you, but thought I'd let you know what the basic thought process was behind our decision.
On Lestat and Jesse
In the novel, Akasha and Lestat don't hook up until near the end. We needed a human character to both be the audience's way into the movie, and someone besides Marius with whom Lestat could have a dynamic. In a feature-length story, characters often have to do double duty.
Let me clarify that in our movie, Lestat and Jesse do not mirror Romeo and Juliet, although they do share some similarities. I agree that Lestat is much less likely to fall for Jesse than she with him. However, certain aspects of her could intrigue him, maybe even remind him of what makes humans special... and then fate or circumstances could bring them together in a way that he would never have predicted. The story is seen from the point of view of Lestat (the vampire) and to a lesser degree Jesse (the human), with a great deal of gap-bridging provided by Marius.
Focusing the Movie on Lestat
The Story of the Twins is a movie in its own right; if we told that story, we wouldn't have room for Lestat's. We felt that focusing the movie on Lestat was the more pragmatic way to go. With less than two hours to work with, this meant no Story of the Twins. We kept Maharet, but only in how she connects to our main story. This is one of those changes that was all but dictated by the constraints of our situation, but that I realize is painful to all lovers of the book. You have our sincere apologies for not being able to give you everything that you wanted.
Many characters (Louis, Daniel, Gabrielle, Mekare, Eric) are not in the story. There isn't enough room for all of the vampires, and their roles seemed less crucial to the telling of our story. If you're seeking a connection to INTERVIEW, then you ought to find it in Lestat.
Gabrielle is a very interesting character, but not essential to the novel, and irrelevant to the parts of the novel that we focused on.
Louis and Daniel aren't in the movie because, they don't have a meaningful role in the story. Armand is in the movie, but only briefly. And I can't talk about Jesse's fate without giving away too much; suffice it to say that, given the nature of our story, our ending makes more sense.
