....I finally watched the movie.
A friend, surprised I had never seen it, had suggested I watch it, saying it was, "So me."
Hmmm.
Of course, I had to ask, "Was it any good?"
A pause, and then, "It was good."
So since the Bright Monday I schedule as "free" every year and always ending up working on it anyway stayed true to tradition, I, nevertheless, kept my promise to Rebekah that today we would watch a movie.
And Interview with the Vampire was it.
I remember feeling"so-so" about the book and not because I was only fiften when I had read it. I was already devouring Taylor Caldwell, Alexandre Dumas, Sheridan LeFanu, etc., etc, so that wasn't it. I think that, even for me, the book's pacing was far too slow, although perhaps, almost four decades later, I should give it another try, especially since several people said Bryony had some reminisces of Interview.
Hmmm, again.
First recantation: Tom Cruise.
I had strong negative feelings about watching any movie that casted Tom Cruise as a vampire, but surprise, surprise, he carried the role exceedingly, applaudingly well. Rebekah pronounced Cruise's Lestat the creepiest part of the movie, and, more than once, she huddled against me for "protection" as a well-enacted scene unfolded.
Second recantation: Brad Pitt.
Not a very convincing vampire, but definitely an attractive sorrowful one. Antonio Banderas plays a far a sexier vampire. Just sayin.'
The movie, unfortunately, picked up the book's dreadfully slow pacing. Now I'm won't go so far as to suggest adding a couple of "epic" battles or car chases, but when someone who likes a slow pace longs for something brisker, it really is too slow.
Yet the film version of Interview compensated in a way that the book, surprise again, could not and that was in visual mood. The sets, the costumes, the backdrops, all evoked a melancholic macabreness I could not easily shake off. In this instance, the movie just might be better than the book.
Now as to why the movie might be "so me?"
Perhaps it's because I, too, like a story with richly drawn characters driving the plot. Perhaps it's that glimpse into a shrouded world of a time past seen through the eyes of those past time. Perhaps it's the appealing rich colors and intense cinematography, the more of "art" and less of "blockbuster." Perhaps it's those brief moments of very strange humor. Perhaps because Interview, like Bryony, doesn't stoop to "vampire governments" and "vampire ethic codes," but deals more with the unfolding of the individual caught between that hazy unreality that isn't quite death and certainly is not life.
If those are the reasons, I accept them.
A friend, surprised I had never seen it, had suggested I watch it, saying it was, "So me."
Hmmm.
Of course, I had to ask, "Was it any good?"
A pause, and then, "It was good."
So since the Bright Monday I schedule as "free" every year and always ending up working on it anyway stayed true to tradition, I, nevertheless, kept my promise to Rebekah that today we would watch a movie.
And Interview with the Vampire was it.
I remember feeling"so-so" about the book and not because I was only fiften when I had read it. I was already devouring Taylor Caldwell, Alexandre Dumas, Sheridan LeFanu, etc., etc, so that wasn't it. I think that, even for me, the book's pacing was far too slow, although perhaps, almost four decades later, I should give it another try, especially since several people said Bryony had some reminisces of Interview.
Hmmm, again.
First recantation: Tom Cruise.
I had strong negative feelings about watching any movie that casted Tom Cruise as a vampire, but surprise, surprise, he carried the role exceedingly, applaudingly well. Rebekah pronounced Cruise's Lestat the creepiest part of the movie, and, more than once, she huddled against me for "protection" as a well-enacted scene unfolded.
Second recantation: Brad Pitt.
Not a very convincing vampire, but definitely an attractive sorrowful one. Antonio Banderas plays a far a sexier vampire. Just sayin.'
The movie, unfortunately, picked up the book's dreadfully slow pacing. Now I'm won't go so far as to suggest adding a couple of "epic" battles or car chases, but when someone who likes a slow pace longs for something brisker, it really is too slow.
Yet the film version of Interview compensated in a way that the book, surprise again, could not and that was in visual mood. The sets, the costumes, the backdrops, all evoked a melancholic macabreness I could not easily shake off. In this instance, the movie just might be better than the book.
Now as to why the movie might be "so me?"
Perhaps it's because I, too, like a story with richly drawn characters driving the plot. Perhaps it's that glimpse into a shrouded world of a time past seen through the eyes of those past time. Perhaps it's the appealing rich colors and intense cinematography, the more of "art" and less of "blockbuster." Perhaps it's those brief moments of very strange humor. Perhaps because Interview, like Bryony, doesn't stoop to "vampire governments" and "vampire ethic codes," but deals more with the unfolding of the individual caught between that hazy unreality that isn't quite death and certainly is not life.
If those are the reasons, I accept them.
No comments:
Post a Comment