anne rice Tagged Articles at Cinematical

You've seen it pointed out by every writer from here to the New York Times: We're in the middle of a vampire craze! Why? Why now? What does it mean? When will it end? Mix in the cries of love and hate for the Edward Cullens, Eric Northmans, and Bill Comptons and you have a deafening discussion centered on the creatures of the night.

But Christopher Beam and Chris Wilson over at Slate have done some historical digging, and come to a surprising discovery: We've never not been in the middle of a vampire craze. Christopher Lee created one, and when the popularity of the vampire began to wane, Anne Rice stepped in. When readers tired of Lestat, in walked Joss Whedon with Buffy, and so on. There's only been a few gaps that Slate terms "The Garlic Years" when vampires were "back in the coffin," perhaps most notably between 1960-1965, and 1975-76. If you think about the entertainment trends of those years, it actually makes sense why no one was sniffing out the artery. That period of the 1960s was when Hitchcock flourished, as did Steve McQueen and James Bond. 1976 was the year of Rocky, Taxi Driver, Network, and so much more. The vogue was for sleek mortal cool and for gritty realism, neither of which are embodied by vampires.

Just days ago, we were buzzing about a rather startling rumor that Robert Downey Jr. might just put on the cravat and fangs of Anne Rice's Lestat de Lioncourt. The comments were pretty much split down the middle on this one, and for good reason. He's an unlikely pick, but it's not as though you can deny he always turns in a fine performance.

But what does Anne Rice think of all this? Jay Tomio of BSC caught up with the author to get her take on the project and its possible star. As everyone remembers from the days of Tom Cruise's casting, Rice has never been shy about voicing her thoughts when it comes to adaptations of her work. Downey can breathe easy though -- if he does take the part, there will be no advertisements against him, because Rice loves the idea.

Like everyone in the civilized world, I love Robert Downey Jr., and it's because I love him that I fervently hope that this fangbanger rumor hits sunlight, and bursts into flames. Bloody Disgusting reports that Universal is looking to cash in on the blood-sucking frenzy, and reboot Anne Rice's The Vampire Chronicles, and that Downey is in talks to play the famous Lestat de Lioncourt.

Lestat was the hero of most of Rice's vampire novels. Blond, bisexual, and a blend of poetry and snark, his seductive powers led him into all kinds of scrapes. He seduced men and women, ran around with the Devil, swapped bodies with humans, seduced the first vampire (who just happened to be an Egyptian queen), and found time to be a rock star. At thirteen, he was one of the most wonderful literary characters I had ever met and by my 20s I found him pretty annoying. Your mileage may vary. But I was one of the few who actually liked Neil Jordan's Interview with the Vampire, and enjoyed Tom Cruise in the role, and was always disappointed that they didn't go on to make The Vampire Lestat together. I think Cruise could have done good things with that installment.

To bring it back now just feels wrong. It feels like a series that time has just passed by, and so much of Rice has been ripped off by every vampire series after that it's not going to really offer anything new. But if they go through with it (and with Twilight and True Blood winding everyone up, I have no doubt they will), they have to look elsewhere for Lestat, don't you think? Downey is wrong for the role, far more ill-suited to the Frenchman's fangs than Cruise ever was. Hopefully, it won't come to pass, and a new Chronicles will only happen in a universe where Alexander Skarsgard can take the role because he isn't on True Blood.

The trick to creating a successful adaptation is not so much in being a stickler about the plot, but in recreating the verve behind the words. It goes beyond simple interest in the characters. Adaptation is just like translation -- translated word for word, it will seem flat and lack the life it does in its original setting. The translator must understand the context of the words within the language, and then find the best fit to recreate that same sentiment. Yet it must also stay true to the original words. If it diverges too much, the life will be lost, even if the meaning is the same. The right adaptation will flow so well that it will not only feed a fan's penchant for details, but also recreate the element of surprise within them.

It, of course, helps when the original screenwriter is the woman who wrote the novel -- Anne Rice. But even director Neil Jordan's inclusions, which took some liberties, Interview with the Vampire maintained most of the spice that made it a book worthy of a cinematic adaptation. He brought the world to the screen, impressing audiences as well as Rice herself -- who was, at first, quite vocal in her distaste over casting. But even she was stunned with what Jordan and his cast accomplished, and ultimately gave the film much praise.

For those who don't remember, author Anne Rice underwent a big religious conversion about ten years ago, and swore off vampirism in favor of writing about Jesus. She went so far as to give interviews saying that she would never write another vampire book even if it meant financial ruin. Apparently, her change in lifestyle hasn't deteriorated her writing ability -- those I know who have read Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt say its an interesting book with Rice's distinctive flair. Hollywood, which is all a-twitter lately with Jesus material, despite the bomb of The Nativity Story, is also apparently interesting in continuing its on-again-off-again relationship with Rice.

IGN is reporting that plans are underway to bring Christ the Lord to the big screen, toot sweet. A company called Good News Holdings, backed by a man named George Barna, is going to produce the film and shoot it in Israel. The next issue of course, is one that IGN put succinctly: "It remains to be seen whether the production will be a legitimately artistic venture, a la Mel's Passion, or a strictly subcultural cheesefest like the Kirk Cameron-led Left Behind." I'm sure that shingles like Fox Faith will probably be eager to jump on the project whether it's the former or the latter -- I mean, did anyone see The Sin Eater? That was Kirk Cameron-city. The piece also reports that a casting search is underway to find a young Jesus, but no other solid about the project is available at this time.

I bet that, when Anne Rice left vampires and witches for the Lord, you thought we wouldn't see any more of her novels make the jump to celluloid, right? Well, you were wrong (And, yes, I was too. We all make mistakes.): The rights to Rice's Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt -- the first in a planned quartet about the life of Christ -- have been acquired by Good News Holdings, a production company formed last fall with the stated goal of creating "faith-based content in multimedia formats." [As an aside, I wonder where Rice's passionate return to the church leaves her non-Gothic novels. Because I would officially flip out if someone made a movie of Cry to Heaven or The Feast of All Saints. Though I guess all the gay lovin' in Cry to Heaven might not fit with Rice's current sensibility. Dammit.]

Rice herself has been hired to write the screenplay and, given her tremendous regard for The Passion of the Christ, expect it to be bloody (when possible -- the book only covers Jesus' life from birth to his family's move from Egypt to Nazareth) and realistic. But in English, one hopes. The plan is to have the film in theaters in time for Christmas, 2007.