![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
labingiSeason 1 of AMC’s Interview with the Vampire broke my heart. To avoid further heartbreak, I avoided commentary on the series, and I apparently did this so assiduously that I convinced the algorithm I didn’t care about it, because I had no idea season 2 had aired until months after it was finished. But I have now watched it and will share a handful of reflections.
Personal Impressions
I liked S2 a lot more than S1 for a few reasons. 1) S1 taught me that this isn’t really an adaptation of the book, so I knew what to expect. 2) It was comparatively closer to the book than S1, which made it go down easier. 3) I think it was better written; it didn’t hit the tin notes some of S1 did for me. As I said of S1, if I were going into this series with no book knowledge, I’d probably be a huge fan. It’s very good in many ways.
Spoiler-Free Review
This season covers roughly the second half of the titular novel and follows the plots points fairly closely with lots of changes in character and motivation.
The Good
* Stellar acting across the board. The recast of Claudia works pretty seamlessly (for me).
* Great production values/ambience.
* Unreliable narrators. Arguably mostly an accident in the VC books (Rice’s concepts changing over time), this series runs with issues of POV and memory to very good effect.
* Not being afraid of complexity: at times the characters, interactions, plot mechanics, and questions of what’s real run deep and nuanced without ever being confusing.
* Good reimagining of secondary characters. Daniel, Santiago, and Madeleine have little in common with their book counterparts, but the characters given their names are good original characters, more deeply drawn than their namesakes.
The Bad
Honestly, not much, but the series’ decision to ditch most of the novel’s themes requires centering secondary themes, which—in my opinion—leads to less interesting storytelling, both because motivations don’t track as well and because the substituted themes are more common in today’s popular media and, therefore, proportionally less creative and engaging: ex. focusing on dysfunctional relationships (definitely there in the book) to the exclusion of religion, parenthood, ontological questions of morality.
The Verdict
It’s good. Vampire fans should see it; most Rice fans will probably like it too. I’m a bit sad, though, that it will probably supplant the books for many and, thus, drown out a lot of the books’ most creative and original qualities.
Spoilery Thoughts
In no particular order...
* I really like the new Santiago. He is a much more formidable antagonist than in the book. I’m glad it didn’t take too much to take him out in the end, though, because that’s not the point.
* The end sets Louis up as such an almost 180-degree different character from the books that I wonder how this will affect the structure of subsequent seasons. For example, if we go from here to TQOFTD “present-day” timeline, what’s Louis’s role? Will he be the no. 2 person Akasha is after? Will he have to compete with Lestat for who is supreme vampire?
* In both S1-2, I'm sad they got rid of Claudia’s child-ness/her monstrosity (beyond regular vamp monstrosity). Connected to this, they write Madeleine as a good OC, but losing her role as a mother is another sign that parental love/grief/guilt is gone as a theme. This, in turn, robs Louis the number one central theme of his character with nothing as powerful to put in its place. He loves Claudia as a sister and feels some guilt for her problems, but maybe 5% of the book. I guess the main theme substituted is realizing you’ve been lied to, which is fine as a theme, just not as powerful because it doesn’t get to the core of self/conscience/guilt/responsibility. It’s in keeping with our society’s current storytelling preferences, though, which tend to favor triumph over bad influences more than inner struggles with self.
* I do, however, really like Claudia as an OC this season. She’s well acted and consistently characterized, both strong and hurting.
* I think they got the book feel of Armand well. I’ll have a separate essay on him.
* I liked that the unreliable narrator stuff was used to semi-redeem Lestat. He went weirdly dark in season 1, but in season 2 feels more like Lestat from TVL on.
* I continue to like this Daniel. He’s a good mix of snarky, smart, and vulnerable--yet weirdly powerful, even with his life hanging on the whim of these two vamps. Also good 1973 flashback.
Personal Impressions
I liked S2 a lot more than S1 for a few reasons. 1) S1 taught me that this isn’t really an adaptation of the book, so I knew what to expect. 2) It was comparatively closer to the book than S1, which made it go down easier. 3) I think it was better written; it didn’t hit the tin notes some of S1 did for me. As I said of S1, if I were going into this series with no book knowledge, I’d probably be a huge fan. It’s very good in many ways.
Spoiler-Free Review
This season covers roughly the second half of the titular novel and follows the plots points fairly closely with lots of changes in character and motivation.
The Good
* Stellar acting across the board. The recast of Claudia works pretty seamlessly (for me).
* Great production values/ambience.
* Unreliable narrators. Arguably mostly an accident in the VC books (Rice’s concepts changing over time), this series runs with issues of POV and memory to very good effect.
* Not being afraid of complexity: at times the characters, interactions, plot mechanics, and questions of what’s real run deep and nuanced without ever being confusing.
* Good reimagining of secondary characters. Daniel, Santiago, and Madeleine have little in common with their book counterparts, but the characters given their names are good original characters, more deeply drawn than their namesakes.
The Bad
Honestly, not much, but the series’ decision to ditch most of the novel’s themes requires centering secondary themes, which—in my opinion—leads to less interesting storytelling, both because motivations don’t track as well and because the substituted themes are more common in today’s popular media and, therefore, proportionally less creative and engaging: ex. focusing on dysfunctional relationships (definitely there in the book) to the exclusion of religion, parenthood, ontological questions of morality.
The Verdict
It’s good. Vampire fans should see it; most Rice fans will probably like it too. I’m a bit sad, though, that it will probably supplant the books for many and, thus, drown out a lot of the books’ most creative and original qualities.
Spoilery Thoughts
In no particular order...
* I really like the new Santiago. He is a much more formidable antagonist than in the book. I’m glad it didn’t take too much to take him out in the end, though, because that’s not the point.
* The end sets Louis up as such an almost 180-degree different character from the books that I wonder how this will affect the structure of subsequent seasons. For example, if we go from here to TQOFTD “present-day” timeline, what’s Louis’s role? Will he be the no. 2 person Akasha is after? Will he have to compete with Lestat for who is supreme vampire?
* In both S1-2, I'm sad they got rid of Claudia’s child-ness/her monstrosity (beyond regular vamp monstrosity). Connected to this, they write Madeleine as a good OC, but losing her role as a mother is another sign that parental love/grief/guilt is gone as a theme. This, in turn, robs Louis the number one central theme of his character with nothing as powerful to put in its place. He loves Claudia as a sister and feels some guilt for her problems, but maybe 5% of the book. I guess the main theme substituted is realizing you’ve been lied to, which is fine as a theme, just not as powerful because it doesn’t get to the core of self/conscience/guilt/responsibility. It’s in keeping with our society’s current storytelling preferences, though, which tend to favor triumph over bad influences more than inner struggles with self.
* I do, however, really like Claudia as an OC this season. She’s well acted and consistently characterized, both strong and hurting.
* I think they got the book feel of Armand well. I’ll have a separate essay on him.
* I liked that the unreliable narrator stuff was used to semi-redeem Lestat. He went weirdly dark in season 1, but in season 2 feels more like Lestat from TVL on.
* I continue to like this Daniel. He’s a good mix of snarky, smart, and vulnerable--yet weirdly powerful, even with his life hanging on the whim of these two vamps. Also good 1973 flashback.
