I remember when Rice's book, INTERVIEW..., was released the FIRST time in the 70s. I was in junior high school at the time, read half of it, and tossed it in the bin to take its place with the rest of the trash. For the life of me, I never dreamed the book, one of the most poorly written I'd ever picked up, would be resurrected years later AND find an audience. So, all that said and bitchy as I am, I thought the film version of INTERVIEW... was abominable.
I was particularly disappointed in this film because it was directed by Neil Jordan who, having worked with Angela Carter on THE COMPANY OF WOLVES, should have known better how to convey the eroticism and arcana of vampirism. Sadly, none of Carter's insight into vampire lore seemed to have rubbed off on him or Rice. As I mentioned, I never finished reading INTERVIEW; but, judging the film version on its own merits, it was as bad as the book; ultimately, a film of wasted opportunities and too much posturing; an exercise in pretentious presentation of a subject as if it is new and undiscovered; an assumption that its audience is too dumb to know more or better.
But QUEEN...is another story altogether. When I first saw the film's trailer, I groaned audibly, but, a few days later, I began to rethink it. Why was I taking it so seriously? Why didn't I just go see the film for fun, for fantasy, for Friday night and leave it at that? So I went to see it this evening, and I enjoyed it!
I must admit, I'm not entirely sure why I enjoyed it. The opening credits sequence with its homage to DAS KABINETT... is, at this point, cliched. Townsend's accent is dodgy and his posing and sneering tiresome. Frankly, posturing, by a number of the film's actors, is a major flaw of this film. And there was just too much MAC and talcum powder all around and not particularly well applied, I might add. And was so much money spent on make-up that there was none left to pay a script editor or language coach with even a basic knowledge of French? Between all the different pronounciations of the name Lestat and such glaring mistakes as "Je suis Lestat..." I have to wonder.
But, on the plus side, there is a real heady dose of artful, decadent, old, and older, world arcana on display particularly when the narrative shifted, early on, to the vampirizing of Lestat and his first encounter with the gorgonized Akasha. Also, Akasha's later presentation is splendid, bizarre, beautiful, and grotesque all at once, and, as far as I'm concerned, worth the price of admission. Also, it was interesting to see a heroine who is hairier than the hero--adds a certain earthy frisson to the proceedings.
Having seen so many horror films and vampire films, in particular, I have to say that QUEEN's plot holds its own. Frankly, in terms of plot, I've never seen a thoroughly satisfying vampire motion picture; and, to make it easier on my willing suspension of disbelief, I find it best to approach them completely on their own terms. Sometimes it works--the enchanting vampire film VALERIE AND HER WEEK OF WONDERS comes to mind--sometimes it doesn't (see INTERVIEW...). QUEEN falls squarely in between, and it's just right for a Friday night.
I was particularly disappointed in this film because it was directed by Neil Jordan who, having worked with Angela Carter on THE COMPANY OF WOLVES, should have known better how to convey the eroticism and arcana of vampirism. Sadly, none of Carter's insight into vampire lore seemed to have rubbed off on him or Rice. As I mentioned, I never finished reading INTERVIEW; but, judging the film version on its own merits, it was as bad as the book; ultimately, a film of wasted opportunities and too much posturing; an exercise in pretentious presentation of a subject as if it is new and undiscovered; an assumption that its audience is too dumb to know more or better.
But QUEEN...is another story altogether. When I first saw the film's trailer, I groaned audibly, but, a few days later, I began to rethink it. Why was I taking it so seriously? Why didn't I just go see the film for fun, for fantasy, for Friday night and leave it at that? So I went to see it this evening, and I enjoyed it!
I must admit, I'm not entirely sure why I enjoyed it. The opening credits sequence with its homage to DAS KABINETT... is, at this point, cliched. Townsend's accent is dodgy and his posing and sneering tiresome. Frankly, posturing, by a number of the film's actors, is a major flaw of this film. And there was just too much MAC and talcum powder all around and not particularly well applied, I might add. And was so much money spent on make-up that there was none left to pay a script editor or language coach with even a basic knowledge of French? Between all the different pronounciations of the name Lestat and such glaring mistakes as "Je suis Lestat..." I have to wonder.
But, on the plus side, there is a real heady dose of artful, decadent, old, and older, world arcana on display particularly when the narrative shifted, early on, to the vampirizing of Lestat and his first encounter with the gorgonized Akasha. Also, Akasha's later presentation is splendid, bizarre, beautiful, and grotesque all at once, and, as far as I'm concerned, worth the price of admission. Also, it was interesting to see a heroine who is hairier than the hero--adds a certain earthy frisson to the proceedings.
Having seen so many horror films and vampire films, in particular, I have to say that QUEEN's plot holds its own. Frankly, in terms of plot, I've never seen a thoroughly satisfying vampire motion picture; and, to make it easier on my willing suspension of disbelief, I find it best to approach them completely on their own terms. Sometimes it works--the enchanting vampire film VALERIE AND HER WEEK OF WONDERS comes to mind--sometimes it doesn't (see INTERVIEW...). QUEEN falls squarely in between, and it's just right for a Friday night.