The Unicorn Scale: Interview with the Vampire

Hello, my lovely Unicorns, and welcome to my favorite time of the year! Yes, I am 100% one of those basic white girls that loves all things fall, foliage, and apple cider (and pumpkin spice, of course — don’t make a bi person choose!) And that includes my favorite holiday season of the year (besides Groundhog Day) — Halloween!

Since this year has been such a grind, my intake of cinematic fare has been decidedly more in the “spoopy” genre than truly frightening. But I am also not immune to sexy, nostalgic dives into the movies of my youth, and that includes the film adaptation of the Anne Rice novel, Interview with the Vampire.

Literally, the first time I ever heard anyone described as sexy was during this era, when my older sister proclaimed that Brad Pitt “oozed sex appeal.” Huh? What did that mean? But then, when I first got a glimpse of that preternaturally beautiful actor in this movie (and, later, Legend of the Fall), I understood exactly what she meant. But what is making me bring up this ghoulish tale now, here at the Scale? Read on to find out.

Before we dive deep into this 1993 drama, I should go over a few ground rules. First and foremost, there will be SPOILERS for this bloody tale. I should also note and give a few content warnings: emotional abuse, violence (though often cartoonish), and bad French tips passing for claws on the eternal damned. Oh, and if you need a refresher on what I’m gauging in this review here, you can go read up on the Unicorn metric here.

Interview with the Vampire deals with the immortal life of Louis (Pitt), a vampire from New Orleans who decides to divulge his dark past to a curious soul (Christian Slater) rather than devouring his blood. While the tale spans centuries, Louis particularly focuses on his dealings with his maker, Lestat (Tom Cruise), and a potential new teacher of this vampiric world, Armand (Antonio Banderas).

What I Liked:

Oh, there’s so very much I love about this film, but it’s outside the scope of what we usually talk about here. Watching it brought me right back to being a terrified-but-fascinated 11-year-old, watching philosophical debates on good vs. evil in Southern Gothic glory by the two prettiest superstar actors of the ‘90s, which was occasionally punctuated by some tableaus of nightmare fuel. But let’s focus particularly on the character of Louis, our narrator, into this world of night.

Louis makes it clear early on that the big reason he was in the depths of despair when Lestat found him was because of the grief over his lost and beloved wife (and child). We then quickly see he is willing to drown his sorrows with female sex workers in order to forget the earthly world and its troubles.

But what particularly gets me watching the film this time around is his clear attraction and intrigue with Armand. Sure, there are definitely moments of male gaze and admiration for his maker, Lestat, but his fixation and literal face strokes with Armand in the second half of the film clearly go beyond an academic curiosity about the origin of their dastardly kind. Some may argue with the departure of the book because Louis felt guilty about his brother’s death after an argument, but I think it’s crucial to point out that 1) Anne Rice herself wrote the screenplay and 2) she got sent a copy of the film for approval, an unusual move for a studio to do at the time.

So while I (sadly) cannot currently claim familiarity with the original material and any departures, and if she suddenly made Louis queer, she at least seems okay with the change in her protagonist’s story since she penned and approved of the difference herself. The change does give me some Cat On A Hot Tin Roof vibes, though.

What also caught my attention in Rice’s introductory video is to remember that these are stories about vampires, but they’re also stories about ourselves. To that point, Louis’ outsider status as someone who knows, remembers, and understands having a foot in two different worlds seems like an apt metaphor for the bi community. I’m not sure if that was Rice’s intention, but it does make a certain kind of sense.

What I Didn't Like:

Honestly, there were moments where I just started shouting at my TV to Louis and Armand to “just kiss already!” So I guess I would have loved to get to see a little lip action and not just teasing (which can feel an awful lot like queerbaiting). In that vein, they never actually state their attractions to each other, so we never get any of the terms under the Bi Umbrella (even something arcane but similar). This is a shame because it clearly falls into the hashtag genre #notallbisarevampires #butallvampiresarebi.

I will say that while I appreciated Louis’ philosophical quagmire, even the most pedantic and mopey of mortal philosophers could display a sense of humor from time to time. It would have made him a bit more believable to remember he was still in touch with his human side. That said, even before he was “born to darkness,” he was a bit of a drama queen. Of course, we have plenty of Lestat’s macabre sense of humor on display, so maybe Rice didn’t want to take away too much of the spotlight that that character clearly loves so much. But it lends to this movie taking itself very seriously, which often ends up with a tonal mismatch.

The Rating:

Believe me; I have so many thoughts on this film. I really do. The tone (which, come on, definitely gets into campiness with Louis and Lestat often bickering like two old queens), the dialogue, and its implications of certain relationships therein. This story is ripe for discussion on so many levels while still being entertaining. But as far as Louis’ bisexuality, while it’s not the strongest example in this particular intersection of the #bivampire genre, it shouldn’t be entirely driven away from the blood bank.