By Thomas H Cullen (UK)
The Ghost in the Shell review went from a perspective that was objective to one that was subjective; Interview with the Vampire is now going to get the reverse treatment.
Interview with the Vampire is a sense that authority is impossible, but the inability to possess or claim authority is the real source of wonder. Thus the subjective perspective. When it comes to something which can be taken from the 1994 classic that’s less made up, it’s that Interview with the Vampire is about the supernatural giving permission to movement to detach itself from the force of hierarchy. And in the abstract sense.
As always, clearing up definitions is the first priority. Movement is repetition, hierarchy is control, and the supernatural is movement without repetition. As such, the meaning of Interview encompasses a state in which movement that lacks the need to repeat claims control, and then the control is executed to devise the separation between control and the need to repeat. Control is detached from repetition, and the way that the objective is accomplished is via the sense of the objective becoming a burden. The need to repeat as a free force is the objective, making the compromise into a force which hasn’t the freedom to enjoy being free.
Repetition that’s free is the goal, making the means to the goal dysfunctional freedom. Relative to Interview with the Vampire, this theme makes 100% sense. Neil Jordan’s direction and script is a film which presents movement that looks beautiful, but is nevertheless dysfunctional. Lestat, Louis and Claudia all move in ways that are beautiful, from start to finish, but the other thread to the film is that the movement that the trio experience is always linked to violence, and to chaotic states. Examples include when Louis bangs Lestat against a tree, and then another tree: the movement is the spectacle, but the spectacle is linked to hostility and anger. Another example is when Claudia and Madeleine are kidnapped by Armand’s vampire associates, and also when Lestat dances with the corpse of Claudia’s deceased mother.
Interview with the Vampire is about the benefits of movement being bad in order to prioritize the basic fact of movement. Movement deserves to be left alone, even if it means condemning emotion, human behaviour, culture and education. For the objective to be functional, the objective has to compromise by losing its sense of enjoyment of itself. The movie symbolises this through its tragic and wicked depiction of the supernatural. Since the film is an adaptation, that fact would naturally raise alarms bells: why should the theme be a theme if it’s based on pre-existing material?
In all honesty, the question isn’t important even if it’s technically valid. What matters, is that the theme represents keen intellectual depth and that the movie-making’s style is sufficient enough to permit the potential of the theme. The basic fact that the film includes its visual sense is what matters.
1994 was almost 25 years ago: it’s disproportionately remarkable how well Interview has aged since. Vampires are a common topic, and the movie’s metaphor has its competition – see Nocturnal Animals, Ghost in the Shell (2017), Alien: Covenant and Batman & Robin.
The best compliment that could perhaps be forwarded to Interview with the Vampire is that it’s the best Vampire movie ever made by a long shot, and also, the metaphor is an elite type of metaphor regardless of how much actual competition it has. Movement is a logical virtue. It makes absolute sense for a work of art to be based around the simplicity of promoting movement unto itself.
At the beginning of the review, the subjectivity which was referenced pertained to the idea that authority is supposed to be an elusive reality. So despite the obviousness that authority means observation, logic extends to observation being a replication. Means is a self-betrayal, and it’s the ability of wonder which is a disparity: on the basis that it’s true, what would it actually mean if the impossibility to behave is the same as timeless hierarchy?
How on earth can an origin of immobility ever be linked to a confirmed difference?