Gay vampires just in time for Halloween!
Vampires are a staple of iconic horror villains. Throughout the centuries that vampires have existed within public consciousness, they have undergone various developments with new media about them. Around the 19th century, the concept of vampires as pale, refined, and seductive creatures came into being. This perception remains generally the same nowadays, even as vampires continue to be modernized in media like Twilight, True Blood, The Vampire Diaries, and so on.
But before the revival of the vampire genre with the frenzy caused by the Twilight saga was The Vampire Chronicles. The series, while still embracing the old 19th century vampire aesthetic, proved to be successful enough for the first book of the series, Interview with the Vampire, to receive a movie adaptation in 1994 starring Brad Pitt as Louis de Pointe de Lac, the vampire in question, and Tom Cruise as Lestat de Lioncourt. Anne Rice, the author of the book, wrote the screenplay to the film, resulting in a mostly loyal movie with a few changes made. One of the changes made was that Louis is now a widower in his mortal life, allegedly because Rice was fearful of Lestat and Louis being perceived as gay.
Her fears weren't unfounded. The homoeroticism of The Vampire Chronicles has been discussed for years. But despite the changes made when Interview with the Vampire hit the big screen, the sensuality of the series lived on. Within the film, vampirism becomes an allegory for sexual liberation, whose binary is defined by Louis (as the sexually repressed) and Lestat (as the sexually liberated). Through the leads, the concept of sexual liberation is both celebrated and criticized.
(And a disclaimer: I'm specifically focusing on the movie adaptation as its own work, not on the book series!)
The film sexualizes the results of Lestat's hunts. Very often, as seen above, he moves in like a lover going for an intimate kiss. His victims are posed as if they are in the throes of blissful ecstasy, very rarely letting on that they're currently being drained of blood. He encourages Louis to take the same approach.
But before the revival of the vampire genre with the frenzy caused by the Twilight saga was The Vampire Chronicles. The series, while still embracing the old 19th century vampire aesthetic, proved to be successful enough for the first book of the series, Interview with the Vampire, to receive a movie adaptation in 1994 starring Brad Pitt as Louis de Pointe de Lac, the vampire in question, and Tom Cruise as Lestat de Lioncourt. Anne Rice, the author of the book, wrote the screenplay to the film, resulting in a mostly loyal movie with a few changes made. One of the changes made was that Louis is now a widower in his mortal life, allegedly because Rice was fearful of Lestat and Louis being perceived as gay.
Her fears weren't unfounded. The homoeroticism of The Vampire Chronicles has been discussed for years. But despite the changes made when Interview with the Vampire hit the big screen, the sensuality of the series lived on. Within the film, vampirism becomes an allegory for sexual liberation, whose binary is defined by Louis (as the sexually repressed) and Lestat (as the sexually liberated). Through the leads, the concept of sexual liberation is both celebrated and criticized.
(And a disclaimer: I'm specifically focusing on the movie adaptation as its own work, not on the book series!)
Death and Personal Inhibition
At the start of the movie, the audience learns that Louis was married but lost his wife in childbirth. As a result of this, he spirals into a deep depression which drives him to seek out self-destructive behaviors. In his words:
If there initial meeting wasn't already portrayed erotically enough, Louis' transformation form human to vampire is even more so. The scene is complete with exaggerated groaning and layered heavy breathing as the beating of their hearts synchronize. Following this scene, Louis become Lestat's vampire companion for a number of decades, with an adopted vampire daughter, Claudia, to join them a short while later.
This framing carries through the rest of the film, with interesting results. Not every single scene with vampires is eroticized -- some are very violent and devoid of any underlying sexual tension. But the line between vampiric thirst and lust in the movie is frequently blurred, especially given Lestat's approach of seduction to lure his victims. Often times, the soundtrack creates a romantic atmosphere to further cement this idea, and the colors are dark and rich. Over the movie hangs a heavy atmosphere of brimming sexuality.
Therefore, I make the argument that death becomes a symbol of total sexual repression, while vampirism is freedom from it. By turning Louis into a vampire, Lestat, as a sexually liberated being, offers him the same liberation. Ultimately, though, it's Louis' choice -- one that he battles with throughout the rest of the movie.
I wanted to lose it all: my wealth, my estate, my sanity. Most of all, I longed for death. I know that now. I invited it. A release from the pain of living. My invitation was open to anyone.We see Louis initiate an altercation at a bar and escapes being shot at the mercy of the man angry at him. Afterwards, Louis leaves with a sex worker and is attacked by her pimp, who demands money from him. However, the attack is interrupted suddenly by Lestat, who, in turn, sinks his teeth into Louis neck and carries him into the air in a tight embrace. He asks Louis if he's had enough of a taste of death; when Louis says yes, he drops him into the river below. The next night, however, he appears at Louis' plantation and offers him the chance to become a vampire. And the rest is vampire history.
If there initial meeting wasn't already portrayed erotically enough, Louis' transformation form human to vampire is even more so. The scene is complete with exaggerated groaning and layered heavy breathing as the beating of their hearts synchronize. Following this scene, Louis become Lestat's vampire companion for a number of decades, with an adopted vampire daughter, Claudia, to join them a short while later.
This framing carries through the rest of the film, with interesting results. Not every single scene with vampires is eroticized -- some are very violent and devoid of any underlying sexual tension. But the line between vampiric thirst and lust in the movie is frequently blurred, especially given Lestat's approach of seduction to lure his victims. Often times, the soundtrack creates a romantic atmosphere to further cement this idea, and the colors are dark and rich. Over the movie hangs a heavy atmosphere of brimming sexuality.
Therefore, I make the argument that death becomes a symbol of total sexual repression, while vampirism is freedom from it. By turning Louis into a vampire, Lestat, as a sexually liberated being, offers him the same liberation. Ultimately, though, it's Louis' choice -- one that he battles with throughout the rest of the movie.
Vampires as the Sexually Liberated
For the first part of the movie, we get to see Lestat leading Louis as they choose various humans as their victims.
The film sexualizes the results of Lestat's hunts. Very often, as seen above, he moves in like a lover going for an intimate kiss. His victims are posed as if they are in the throes of blissful ecstasy, very rarely letting on that they're currently being drained of blood. He encourages Louis to take the same approach.
It becomes impossible to distinguish a romantic, intimate gesture from a feeding vampire. Vampires are beautiful, charismatic, and alluring. Or they must be, at least, if they want to lure in victims rather than attacking them without warning.
In that way, the sexuality of the victims is inherently linked to the thirst of the vampires. While there isn't necessarily any explicitly sexual scenes that happen in the movie, there's a consistent portrayal of vampires as sexual creatures because of their vampirism.
However, as stated before, being a vampire does not immediately grant sexual liberation. Louis is highly uncomfortable with being a vampire. In the scene pictured above, he abandons the woman in his arms for her dogs.
Nowhere do I mean to imply that anything a vampire bites is immediately the object of sexual gratification. It is possible to kill without attachment, but the constant positioning of vampires as a seducer retains an air of sexual freedom. Louis' inability to fully surrender himself in the pursuit of a victim permeates in various other aspects outside of the hunt. We see that, following the death of his wife, he has become detached from others in his life and the idea of life itself. He remains at odds from Lestat and later Armand, regardless of how friendly he is with them. Louis' narration paints a clear picture of a man too busy grappling with his own sense of self and morality to allow himself to ever fully commit to somebody else, with the exception of Claudia.
Lestat, on the other hand, does not struggle with the same internal battle.
The scene with the two women, as pictured above, is particularly interesting. At the start of the scene, Lestat is inside with two women while Louis remains outside on the balcony, watching with quiet disgust. Lestat has taken off his jacket, so that he's in his white shirt. The deep red of the room, bubbling with drunk lust, stands in stark contrast to the gray of the night sky that obscures Louis. In the picture above, we can see Lestat in between the legs of one of the women as he drains her of her blood, while Louis stands with his back turned to what's happening behind him.
The second woman remains unaware of the truth of what happens to her friend. Lestat simply tells her that her friend "has no head for wine" before moving on to seduce her. Red becomes a recurring theme in this scene: the color of the room, the color of the wine, the color of blood, and the color of lust. The walls become a representation of the blurring of these boundaries.
Further suggestive positioning of the actors is employed. Lestat choose to bite the woman on her breast, an especially erogenous zone, while seated between the woman's open legs. As Lestat is brought to the focus in the center of the screen, we can also see that Louis' focus has turned to him, as well.
The woman's blood stains the white of her dress and runs down between her legs, where she has her hand located. Once again, lust and vampiric thirst become one and the same. Louis remains on the outside the entire time. When Louis offers the woman to her, he refuses to drink.
Louis continues to have this problem throughout the film, leading to a point when Claudia asks him to turn a woman, Madeleine, into a vampire. His response isn't positive:
Louis views himself as an evil being incapable of initiating such intimate contact with others. Even as a mortal, Louis had this issue; after all, in Louis' first meeting with Lestat, the latter interrupts his rather detached engagement with a sex worker that was already being interrupted by a judgmental third party. Even if Lestat hadn't been there, Louis wouldn't have been able to complete the interaction with the sex worker. His expression of sexuality, even a paid one, has been blocked.
As Louis' transformation would suggest, vampire's sexuality not only extends to mortal victims, but to other vampires. Louis' refusal of a new companion reflects further on his character.
In that way, the sexuality of the victims is inherently linked to the thirst of the vampires. While there isn't necessarily any explicitly sexual scenes that happen in the movie, there's a consistent portrayal of vampires as sexual creatures because of their vampirism.
However, as stated before, being a vampire does not immediately grant sexual liberation. Louis is highly uncomfortable with being a vampire. In the scene pictured above, he abandons the woman in his arms for her dogs.
Nowhere do I mean to imply that anything a vampire bites is immediately the object of sexual gratification. It is possible to kill without attachment, but the constant positioning of vampires as a seducer retains an air of sexual freedom. Louis' inability to fully surrender himself in the pursuit of a victim permeates in various other aspects outside of the hunt. We see that, following the death of his wife, he has become detached from others in his life and the idea of life itself. He remains at odds from Lestat and later Armand, regardless of how friendly he is with them. Louis' narration paints a clear picture of a man too busy grappling with his own sense of self and morality to allow himself to ever fully commit to somebody else, with the exception of Claudia.
Lestat, on the other hand, does not struggle with the same internal battle.
The scene with the two women, as pictured above, is particularly interesting. At the start of the scene, Lestat is inside with two women while Louis remains outside on the balcony, watching with quiet disgust. Lestat has taken off his jacket, so that he's in his white shirt. The deep red of the room, bubbling with drunk lust, stands in stark contrast to the gray of the night sky that obscures Louis. In the picture above, we can see Lestat in between the legs of one of the women as he drains her of her blood, while Louis stands with his back turned to what's happening behind him.
The second woman remains unaware of the truth of what happens to her friend. Lestat simply tells her that her friend "has no head for wine" before moving on to seduce her. Red becomes a recurring theme in this scene: the color of the room, the color of the wine, the color of blood, and the color of lust. The walls become a representation of the blurring of these boundaries.
Further suggestive positioning of the actors is employed. Lestat choose to bite the woman on her breast, an especially erogenous zone, while seated between the woman's open legs. As Lestat is brought to the focus in the center of the screen, we can also see that Louis' focus has turned to him, as well.
The woman's blood stains the white of her dress and runs down between her legs, where she has her hand located. Once again, lust and vampiric thirst become one and the same. Louis remains on the outside the entire time. When Louis offers the woman to her, he refuses to drink.
Louis continues to have this problem throughout the film, leading to a point when Claudia asks him to turn a woman, Madeleine, into a vampire. His response isn't positive:
How do we seem to you? Do you think us beautiful, magical, our white skin, our fierce eyes? Drink, you ask me! Have you any idea of the thing you will become?
Louis views himself as an evil being incapable of initiating such intimate contact with others. Even as a mortal, Louis had this issue; after all, in Louis' first meeting with Lestat, the latter interrupts his rather detached engagement with a sex worker that was already being interrupted by a judgmental third party. Even if Lestat hadn't been there, Louis wouldn't have been able to complete the interaction with the sex worker. His expression of sexuality, even a paid one, has been blocked.
As Louis' transformation would suggest, vampire's sexuality not only extends to mortal victims, but to other vampires. Louis' refusal of a new companion reflects further on his character.
Vampire Coupling and Same-Sex Bonding
The role of master and fledgling within Interview with the Vampire is a very intimate relationship. Although Lestat is often portrayed as an antagonistic figure by Louis, it doesn't do much to retract that fact that the two called themselves fathers to Claudia.
Could Claudia have had a vampire mother? Hasn't Lestat seduced only women so far? Indeed, I've only shown pictures of Lestat and Louis with women. Until now, at least.
 |
| As Louis struggles to feed from the woman with the dogs, Lestat caresses a young man a short distance away. |
Vampires have their choice of fledglings. There are definitely female vampires (Claudia being an example of one), and yet Lestat, and later the vampires of the Théâtre des Vampires, are shown to be in primarily male-male relationships. When Louis goes to Paris and runs into Santiago, one of the vampires from the aforementioned group, a rather bizarre dance occurs, as Santiage is proving that he, too, is a vampire like Louis. The whole scene feels like what I would imagine cruising as a vampire in 19th century Paris would be like.
This tendency of all the male vampires in this movie leads us back to Louis' rejection of Madeleine as a potential partner. Claudia offers her to him as Armand, the unofficial leader of the Théâtre des Vampires, makes his move towards Louis as his potential partner, as well.
Louis' refusal of Madeleine is more outright. Eventually, he does turn Madeleine into a vampire, but not out of his own desire for a partner. On the other hand, his interactions with Armand come off as subdued flirtation. Louis leaves with only a quiet confrontation with him as a consequence of the ensuing tragedy in Paris; there's no angry declaration of rejection.
During the argument between Louis and Claudia regarding Madeleine, she shouts at him, "Your evil is that you cannot be evil!" While the time period at this point is ambiguous (my estimate is around the 1860s), the moral outcry of the Victorian era was fast approaching and any kind of sexual act, particularly sex work and homosexuality, would be considered outrageously obscene. That's not to say that sex before this point in Christian-dominated countries hadn't already been viewed as sinful already. And if the line between sex and vampirism is blurred, then what, exactly, makes Louis evil?
Perhaps the only thing Louis finds joyful in his life is being a father to Claudia. This makes sense; after all, he lost his wife and child in his mortal life. Claudia has become a replacement for his child. And who has replaced his wife?
The reason for Madeleine's transformation was so that Claudia could have a companion if Louis wanted to stay with Armand in Paris. These plans ultimately don't work out in the end, but the idea of vampirism being "evil" and so frequently blended with lust casts fascinating shadows upon the preferred same-sex coupling of the vampires. Just as vampirism is an appeared slight against God, so is same-sex partnership on such intimate levels.
The lighting of the film aids with setting this mood. Vampires hiding in murky shadows, with none of God's saving light to release them from having to drink other's bloods in order to survive. Rather, light is a symbol of death for them -- the end of their liberation as the common morality of society returns.
So is Interview with the Vampire a celebration or condemnation of being sexually liberated?
Both and neither. There's nothing wrong with being sexual or asexual, from the film's viewpoint. Lestat's flaws as a character rest within the hubris that comes with his sexual aggression. Louis' flaws as a character always comes back to the fact that he continually isolates himself out of self-hatred.
Ultimately, Interview with the Vampire paints a neutral portrait of sexuality and allows nuance to exist. Self-loathing and preoccupation with the idea of one's self being "evil" are two major conflicts in the plot. A clear answer is never quite given, just as clear answers never quite exist in real life.
Are the vampires good or bad? Does it vary from vampire to vampire? Is it ever morally justifiable to become a vampire? Are society's morals useless in the first place? These are the questions asked by Interview with the Vampire.
Earlier, I clarified that this post was specifically about the movie. But I would like to leave off with a quote from the book that so beautifully wraps up everything. From Louis to Armand:
That is the crowning evil, that we can even go so far as to love each other, you and I. And who else would show us a particle of love, a particle of compassion or mercy? Who else, knowing us as we know each other, could do anything but destroy us? Yet we can love each other.Perhaps love for each other is all that matters in the end.
Comments
Post a Comment