You may read Lestat & Marius scenes from the eralier movie scripts & my comments on them, in
Movie Scripts section.
Now, since there is a film adaptation and fans who read the books before the film came out, usually don't bother to think before they judge it.
I mean in some matters the answer to "why" is that "the script writers were morons" but SOME things do make sense.
I reason only significant changes in this. Things such as Lestat and Marius's hair and eye colours are not such, they've a point in the books, yes - but not significance
to the the characters in personality, which is what I think matters the most.
| LESTAT'S MAKER? | | "TOO" WRAPPED UP TOGETHER? | | THE STORYLINE? |
| THE RELATIONSHIP ITSELF? | | MARIUS & RAISING LESTAT? |
LESTAT'S MAKER?
In the film; The producer of the film in F.A.Q at Warner Bros's QOTD site:
"Marius makes Lestat for the sake of economy. It happens to work extremely well from a character-motivation point of view.”
I know! I agree. It really does.
”We changed who made Lestat because we couldn't keep every character, and Marius is a terrific substitute.”
I was really surprised to read all that after I'd spent a lot of time analysing how it indeed does work extremely well
for the chatacters and how Marius indeed is a terrific substitute, if looked into the books, while I was in the impression that they just thought about saving minutes.
But apparently someone saw how well it would work BUT why the hell did they fuck it up and didn't use those chatacter-motivations?
But nothing changes the fact that ditching Magnus in the first place, not to mention turning Marius into the cold one, was probably the most crucial change they could ever make. And thus basically very wrong. There is a reason why Magnus and Marius are two different characters. Two VERY different chatacters. The idea of Marius as Lestat’s maker greatly fascinates me personally, and Anne Rice knows this, and is "delighted that the relationships described in the books have the deprh to withstand differences of opinion and interpretion." But I mean for a little fanvision. Not a profit feature film that was supposed to adapt the books’s storý and show it to the world in a cinematic form!
And as said, they didn't even bother to stay true to the characters and their motivations.
But what's done is done. Read the rest and you should come to see, what I am talking about.
All in all - let's look into the books;
Some fans seem to object to the change regardless of Magnus. They don't mind all that much if Magnus is in it or so it seems, but they do cry about the fact Marius is his maker in the film. I believe Marius is the
only other reasonable option for Lestat's maker of all the characters that were around during that time.
That vision DOES work extremely well from a character-motivation point of view. And here's why:
(1.) Rice's vampires make vampires of people they love - usually. And thus, seeing to the amounts of love between Lestat and Marius from Marius's side as well and the DEPTH of their relationship, I see nonthing standing against the very realistic and logic possibility of Marius being Lestat's blood maker - had he been the one who found Lestat.
You see, in the books Marius does take Lestat as if Lestat was his own, as if he had made Lestat.
But there's a fine line between being someone's vampiric "father" and being someone's human type father but they can naturally be combined. I always saw the vampiric fathers, mothers and children as simply symbolical terms. As Magnus called Lestat his son but admired only Lestat's looks and his bravery and fighter-nature and ha chosen him for those reasons and not in any intention to raise him in any emotional way and Lestat looked up to him as marely a teacher,
Armand was Marius's vampiric son but they were lovers, as were Marius and Pandora though symbolically a father and daughter... New born vampires are symbolically their makers' children only because they're of their blood and need guidence in vampire life, in other words very practical type of children and in emotional level it may develope to anything. Now that I think of it - I don't recall any other case besides Lestat and Marius, where a fledgling is thought of as a real child to be a real parent to. Well, as said, in the books of course Lestat wasn't Marius's fledgling but here comes the point that Marius seemed to take him as if he was. He seemed to think of Lestat as both; his vampiric son as in a fledgling and as his own son as if they were a human family.
(2.) And Lestat's deep, burning need for a loving father would make the fact Marius took mortality away from him matter very little to Lestat. Sure, he became a bit bitter for that but obviously, he also didn't in the end care so much as long as Marius was with him.
And by the way, in the book too when Marius came to Lestat, Lestat was all dried up of blood and after Marius fed him his, 99,99% of the blood in Lestat from then on, was Marius's blood, just like in the mvoie.
I don't see the maker-vision destroying anything in their relationship, while I can see the relationship being a very realistic reason for the bite.
(3.) And Marius would've had better reasons for the act than Magnus did.
Emotional and soothing reasons (even if the film makers fucked that up and didn't use the realistic ones) - while Magnus had psychotic and shallow.
And Marius would be determinate but loving and gentle - not aggressive and cold where as Lestat might resist but he certainly wouldn't be afraid.
I bet the heartfelt and beautiful father-son connection would've shown itself perfectly clear from the very moments, probably making Lestat confused but trusting enough
not to be afraid.
So I don't think the movie vision should be shot down like that. One just has to think more logic than the film makers did when it comes to the reasons why and how.
The film makers however did have an in-character moment there; Marius saying "You've been brave enough for one night, my son." with compassionate tone and eyes, Lestat seeing and hearing this, clearly calmed down and began to drink
That was the key moment of their bond in the film's otherwise messed up vision. There was this sorrowful but now hopefull longing flash in Lestat's eyes instantly after the words "You've been brave enough for one night, my son."
(4.) I could see Marius turning Lestat into a vampire against Lestat's will even though it's usually not like Marius - and yet in the end, it might not even have to go that way:
He could only give him the choice of either dying or becoming a vampire. And to Lestat, dying would've been far worse, plus Marius loved Lestat too much to even think of killing him instead of turning him. And Marius would know he'd be giving Lestat more than he'd be taking from him, by turning him. This also becoming a another realistic reason why he'd turn Lestat regardless of his young age, in which he already regretted taking Armand. And he also might have already got enough over the mistake Armand was, as it had been hundreds of years ago, and anyway, he'd do it different this time around. He'd take Lestat into the vampire world against Lestat's will and at such a young age but under his wing and only eventually when the time would be right would send Lestat to live out one lifetime, SO that eventually should Lestat die, he'd at least die happy as he'd have had a loving father in his life.
That's why I think in Lestat's case not giving the choice would be perfectly Marius - as in being the parent who'll pull his child through the fear they have no need for, and why as I said, Lestat wouldn't mind not having the choice. He would resist - but only to a degree. And as said, in the end it might not be so much against Lestats will and thus not so much forcing:
Marius is an ancient with the whole godlike vibe oozing from him, added to how he just is kind, gentle and loveable. Whereas Lestat surely would begin to resist due to his fear of death and darkness, the situation however would have to be and develope in so, sooo much the opposite way than it does with Magnus.
Leading to the - as far as I see - quite probable point of the situation, where Lestat might not resist so strongly that it could purely be called being forced. Maybe he wouldn't say exactly "Ok, I'll take it!" - but then again, why not? Who WOULDN'T be awfully tempted to get to know Marius better, especially if seen in him the daddy that's been yearned for? But you know, in the least, I believe Lestat might not be completely against becoming a vampire. Marius would probably talk to him about what it would be like and what they could be. Not in manipulative way/tone but the truth 'cause we all know, they're a perfect match and Lestat does enjoy being a vampire anyway.
And let's think if; if Lestat really truly resisted all along - Marius turning him against his wishes I would just see an act of a parent who's pulling his child through a fear the child has no need for. Especially since at that point the only other option would be death, which is one of the things the child fears and there is no time to let him overcome it other way - so um, yeah. Marius forcing Lestat to take the Dark Gift can't stop making sense to me, whereas in the end I believe he wouldn't even have to so literally and purely force him after all.
(5.) As for the probablity of Marius ever crossing Lestat's path, noticing him and even turning him;
Marius did not spend all his days on the island but he travelled far from there, countless times. As he said to Lestat, he had seen Lestat's written messages himself and that sometimes they had been closer to each other than Lestat even knew.
And as said, I believe the father's love he feels for Lestat combined to how much Lestat yearned for it and it must have oozed from him, might be a valid reason why he'd end up turning Lestat,
but also what Nicolas said to Lestat about him (Lestat):
"There's a radiance in you, Lestat. It's there even when your sad or discouraged. There's a light in you that's almost blinding. And it draws everyone to you."
That would naturally apply to Marius the same as anyone else in noticing, being drawn to and wanting to be with Lestat. Besides, the things in Lestat, that Marius at one point describes himself to "already love rather too strongly", are all there in the mortal Lestat as well. At least for how I see the mortal Lestat. Marius said to him something like "Then I'll be the one who begs you not to leave me. I'll fall in love with your company, your conversation, the mare sight of you, your recklessness and your stanima, your lack of belief in anything. All the things about you I already love rather too strongly."
(6.) I think Marius would offer the Dark GIft to Lestat;
The light in Lestat, the things he loves about Lestat, and Lestat's daddy issues. Sure as hell he would give it a lot of thought and consideration unlike he had done with others, but there seems to be enough reasons for why he'd want to offer it, and why he might think it could work.
The time he'd live with Lestat before sending him out to live a lifetime on his own would naturally make and keep Lestat happy enough (and give him strength for the future) due to his daddy issues being the most significant part of his mortal misery. And it is not as if Marius is like the film version, all you-can-not-do-anything-with-mortals-ever-again but he rather encouraged Lestat to live as mortal-like as he could with still valuing the vampire secrecy and he gave valuable and wise guidelines for how to act if and when he'd get lonely and make other vampires for company. He so very clearly constantly cared about Lestat's feelings and tried to help him in remaining happy and strong even without him by his side. To guide him to have as good life as he possibly could in the vampire situation.
Marius did absolutely nothing spontaniously when it came to Lestat but always seemed to think of both, what he himself wanted and what would be best for Lestat. Oh, except of course saving his life was a thing he certainly didn't stop to think on.
So yeah... I think he'd want to offer, consider it well, and probably end up doing so for a selfless reason, and knowing or believing he has the potential, will and strength to work it for Lestat's best even more than it in the first place already would be. And partly also because naturally he would've learnt from his past mistakes. That was after all, why he insisted Lestat to go alone for the lifetime even though he desperately wanted Lestat to remain and was very tempted to go along.
I just think Marius's mind, motives and understanding when it comes to Lestat, have always been very right, determined and clear to himself.
X
I prefer Marius for many reasons and I do not mention all of them here, but I still would never wish the books to be any other way because they're brilliant and beautiful just the way they are.
And of course I'd have rather seen Magnus in the film too - as said, you shouldn't make this crucial change for a feature film.
My preference is only for a little fanvision. For some reasons for my preference I could mention here that I think it works well for the characters, and I love Lestat's psychological bases which Marius address to, and I love exploring all the possibilities of the characters.
You see, in
The Vampire Lestat,
Lestat does state that the fact he was, in his mortal life, held back from a chance to live a life and his dreams,
that it didn't matter - that it couldn't account for such unhappiness as he was feeling.
And he had just a moment before confessed to repeatedly dream of maniacally slaughtering his father and his brothers.
Lestat's sanity and happiness was clearly bound to having a loving father.
Magnus as Lestat's maker and then only later meeting Marius, enables Lestat to adventure and spend money, live a life out there in the world but he had ssaid such things don't matter to him as much as having a loving father does
and thus naturally his glorious acting carrieer wasn't really giving him what he really needed and knew that would make him truly happy.
For Lestat's emotional developement the maker naturally also matters, and in it's differing it's exactly what fascinates me.
Especially as it still would not make Lestat into a completely different man.
In fact, I don't see anything changing significantly, because of the maker - at least not long-termly, even if his actions would develope in a different storyline and so in a different way.
But after all, his mortal life naturally affects him all the way (and no I don't mean just the family relationships but everything that happened to him), and be the maker Marius or Magnus, he would've been the same.
His characteristics were formed and set during those intense 21 years of his human life. What did happen to him when becoming a vampire, was that he got to be himself more freely. Magnus didn't make his personality even if he did affect him in a way, for a time.
As for the storyline, he would've lost Nicki and Gabrielle - probably in a different way but still lost them. Gabrielle too forever, as she was dying, which would've affected Lestat different than when he was able to save her, but the fact he wouldn't have dealt with it alone would balance it a little.
Marius's love naturally would make anything easier to cope, Marius as Lestat's maker would makke Lestat's emotional developement in a way more complicted - or would the correct word be, more indepth, and naturally partly different, as Marius is his ultimate source of strength - but as said, it wouldn't change anything completely... as strength to cope with things doesn't mean they wouldn't affect you enough.
And 9 years is a long time - who knows what could've happened to him during them basically the same as if Magnus made him as Lestat was still the adventurous, childlike and sensitive himself.
The maker alters the storyline, affects Lestat's inner strength and happiness, but I personally think - even though the maker and some vampire life events are very significant - they key events and feelings to what kind of a vampire he turned out to be, lie in his mortal life before he ever met a vampire... His human life was so extremely intense in emotional matters that it can't not permanetly affect him in many ways. His rebelious attitudes spring from his mortal life, his desire to murder was caused by it and exsisted already in it, his yearning to adventure and live his dreams were there as well, he had trust issues there already
and he was also eager to learn already then.... Magnus as his maker added to all that a lot but they were there strongly and permanently even before Magnus. Marius as Lestat's maker naturally would affect those things in a positive way but as said and in the books too proved, he didn't affect them so much that they'd fall away. Always, always look firstly into a person's childhood and early life when you want to understand who they are because that's what makes a person's psychological base, and only then think of how later events and reltionships affect it.
As for Marius teaching values and morals of being a vampire, he did so and Lestat respected them to no limits yet broke some of them deliberately anyways - it wouldn't matter when they were taught. All said, hence what I said earlier - the maker change would be psychologically best for Lestat, it would work perfectly too and it wouldn't change Lestat's personality. The only thing that changes is the storyline.
So while I think Magnus in all his psychotic and vampiric creepiness in every way, is quite a fascinating character especially for Lestat's first touch with vampires, I still prefer Marius as Lestat's maker in the first place because of the psychological basics of Lestat's character and story as it is which of course brings it around to because of the relationship - but in general level;
I think it works for the character and is fascinating idea with the whole practical dying-for element.
The fact that the relationship is something adorably in-depth and beautiful only adds to it.
To make even clearer how we think the maker doesn't affect or change Lestat's personality and how even the storyline wouldn't need to drastcically differ,
and how it is perfectly easy to come to think of Marius as Lestat's maker even withoutt the film; read Myf_1992's article
Marius VS. Magnus So that is not my article, but my friend's.
"TOO" WRAPPED UP TOGETHER?
I hear from some fans, Marius is too wrapped up with Lestat.
I'd say, there was numerous reasons to have them spend more time together before parting.
In the books Lestat and Marius spent only few days together before Lestat had to leave to live out his lifetime.
But I can easily see them living together for even the 9 years in the film version.
I mean, it's one thing to have a child someone else made, come searching for you, asking you to teach him everything there is to know, and another thing to make him yourself.
Marius, as seen in the book quotes in the My View section, obviously already had huge emotional troubles sending Lestat away in the way they were in the books.
So I can not imagine Marius as a person who'd make someone into a vampire just to be throwing him into the big bad world to live out the lifetime he just took away from the person, or rather the possibility to live that lifetime as a human being.
I actually think it might have worked well in the film if they'd have left Lestat's birth-to-darkness-year the 1780 instead of changing it into 1788.
Had the two live together for the 9 years which Lestat in the books spent searching for Marius. Of course it would've totally been against the timelines of the books but so what?
It was all changed anyways: Marius replaced Magnus, they didn't have Gabrielle nor Nicki in anyways - and the movie was anyways totally different in everything.
So, there's nothing really making the 9-years-together even difficult to be not to mention impossible.
As said, seeing to Marius's persona, values and understanding towards living annd eternity - him as Lestat's maker, having Lestat around for a longer period of time before parting with him for a lifetime would seem only logic.
Like - you make a child you DO take the responsibility of raising and guiding him before he must find independence and learn from life itself.
I think the film makers kinda might have thought like I do. That Marius wouldn't just make a vampire to cast him away all that soon as after few days.
Because the night Marius makes Lestat in the film, according to Lestat, was winter of 1788 and the parting happened officially 1789 even if it wasn't mentioned in the film -
so it would make at least a few months of them staying together. So why not even 9 years.
So yeah, maybe they are too wrapped up together in the film in comparation to the books - but in my eyes it is not wrong or illogic while they also changed it so that Marius is Lestat's maker.
In a movie - a simple storyline works better as well for the watcher as for the flowing of the movie.
THE STORYLINE?
They say for a movie needing a simple storyline, the story went differently. Very much differently, and not only by the changing of Lestat's maker.
But I don't think it would've had to go THIS much differently. They just began with the wrong attitude in the first place.
In the books Lestat becomes a rockstar in order to risk the vampire secrecy in an extreme level and "just to see what happens" - he literally says that to Marius in his dream,
where Marius askes why did he risk his vengeange. Of course there were more reasons for Lestat to do the rockstar thing with the revealing of the secrets and my point is as soon revealed, none of them was those the film states.
And in the end he has no idea that it was Akasha helping him, Louis and Gabrielle after the concert but thinks it's Marius and is
just as surprised that Akasha had risen as he is in the film, only in the book he is much more eager and happy about it because he loves Akasha.
But basically he didn't mean to wake her any more than he does in the film. As said, he did it all "just to see what happens".
However the film has him do it all because he's lonely so even the lyrics of his songs are completely different.
There's no Lestat & Jesse whatsoever in any kind of relationship in the books, Lestat loves Akasha and he does not call out for Marius
even though he wanted to but he says "through all my struggles it had become a matter of pride not to call out for him." In the film however there's the fake and illogic Lestat&Jesse "love" relationship,
and he has become suicidal and he obsesses about finding Marius. And in the film's end he helps in killing Akasha which he doesn't do in the book,
forgets about Marius while in the book he says he couldn't even think of leaving him, and in the film he leaves with Jesse though their storyline doesn't suport such a thing but more realistically it would lead to Lestat killing her.
The only thing they got right in this film's story was the fact that Marius would risk his life to try and save Lestat and Lestat yearned for Marius to be by his side. But even that they completely dismiss in the final scene.
Now let us go in-depth with the film's differing storyline on Lestat & Marius
and see if we can find anything ok about it.
In the books Akasha and Enkil moved a lot and Marius knew it. He took them outside sometimes and back in before the dawn, Marius brought them stuff from the other islands and flowers
to make the chamber beautiful and pleasent to look at, as Those Who Must Be Kept were not sleeping at least not all the time.
But in the film the chamber is quite empty and the two are supposedly in trance, and Marius did not even want them to move. At least not too much.
He seemed all damnit-son-NEVER-do-that-again-beacuse-it's-a-potential-end-of-the-world yet also a little damnit-why'd-she-move-for-him-and-not-for-me.
Mostly the first attitude. Haha, too bad the jealousy was the bit Lestat picked on. "Mwahaha! Until tonight! And she chose me!" ;D
So in the film Marius knew more about Akasha and Enkil than he does in the book and thus he didn't adore Akasha so much.
Personally I think they still had it way too extreme. Akasha ought to still be a mystery and the Queen, so he ought to have loved her in some way.
Only, knowing more, he'd try to protect Lestat, to keep him from falling for someone so dangerous.
The incident with the statues of Akasha and Enkil: In the book Marius showed the statues to Lestat by means and told the whole story, and later Lestat decides to play the violin for them - he goes back to the chamber
out of his own free will and against Marius's will - even though Akasha is helping him to open the doors and all. In the movie however Lestat half accidentally finds them on his own
and thus of course Marius has not told him not to but certainly anyone knows secret tunnels and chambers are a big no no. (But brats never care.)
Anyways in the movie version it is Akasha calling to Lestat, helping him to find the chamber, tempting him to come and play, so in the movie version the incident is a little less Lestat's fault though
he did know better than to go without asking first. The incident in the chamber is also very different - far more violent and dramatic in the books than in the movie.
And the parting of Lestat and Marius was really sweet and adorable, reassuring and emotional in the books when Marius sends Lestat away, for his own good to live out one lifetime and to proteect him from Enkil.
They talk about it also before the actual parting has to happen.
In the film Marius however abandons him, leaving while Lestat sleeps.
Still I don't think he ever meant it to be forever or did so any more willingly and light-hearted than in the books.
He just didn't for one reason or another, say it to Lestat. So, the way Marius abandons him in the film is just too cold as it is.
For it to be Marius doing it. So I'd like to think they did exchange some loving words before that happened, before Lestat fell asleep that night.
And maybe had talked about a lifetime's seperation earlier... just so it wouldn't be all that complete surprise to Lestat that they'd one day be apart.
The film doesn't make it seem like it'd been like that but it does leave chances for it as it jumps over nights, maybe even months, leaving them unshowed.
And they didn't show every bit of that last night, so there could've been more to it.
And why Marius in the film stayed away for longer than a lifetime? Lestat mentions he slept for hundred years. Which makes it pretty much almost from right away after Louis and Claudia left to the day he woke in 1984.
Marius most likely did not feel like wanting to wake the sleeping child, who needed the rest. Thus, Marius returns after another lifetime which Lestat spent sleeping.
In the film Lestat calls out for Marius countless times while in the book he never did until during the events of his concert. But this must be because they parted in completely different tone and way.
In the book Lestat says "through all my struggles it had been a matter of pride not to call out for him" but that "what difference would pride make now"... that "now all the bitterness and stubborness had fallen away".
He called out for Marius to ask for help, only to find out Marius is prisoned in ice and so unable to but needing help himself.
So in the film Marius is in the concert in person, and leaps on the stage to protect Lestat from the other vampires.
He's the only one doing so. In the book Marius is not able to do this as Akasha had prisoned him in ice when she awoke. So Marius tries to reach Lestat through the mind-link thing they share.
How they can call to each others through long, long distances and even see flashes of each others wherever they are. "Build a bridge across the distance" as Marius put it in the book's parting scene.
So in the book he's kept from flying to Lestat's side but in the film there's no ice-prisoning and Marius is on the stage with him and earlier had warned him about Akasha. I don't know but I hope this choice was made to make up for all the out-of-character bullshit
earlier in the film. But most likely only to save time and there wasn't anyone else in the film's character selection anyways present to try and save Lestat, unlike in the book there's Louis and Gabrielle.
As they weren't going to stay true to the books in events, this was probably the wisest change they made.
One change in the storyline that can't be at all explained nor excused with the movie-needing-a-simple-storyline, is the ending. That they turned completely upside down & unrealistic, without
any actual need to do so.
On that I write in the Books vs. Movie section.
THE RELATIONSHIP ITSELF?
As said, in this film too, they are equally purely a father and son. Bur the film version's storyline and couple of lines given to the characters makes it hard to see how indescribably much Marius loved Lestat and didn't want to part with him.
(I'm not making this up, friends - it is stated in clear english, literally, in Marius's lines in the books, directly to Lestat himself, during their discussion - and not even just once but repeatedly.)
As I say in the Books / Movie section
the strength of the love and the bond is clear from the movie too if you only look into the emotional moments of the pair.
And however, the original script had many moments showing the depth better.
At least as I say there I myself got totally the impression they never wanted to be apart, either of them and totally loved each others, from the very first view,
and so I hadn't even read the earlier scripts yet.
But - ones of the most high-lighting out-of-character lines in the film are:
Lestat: "A little too late to come over all paternal now, Marius. 200 years and not a word from you."
Marius: "You almost cost me everything. And now you're doing it again. This isn't the time to settle old scores."
Firstly - Too late to come over all paternal? Yeah, right - maybe when cows fly and the sky has fallen down. And even then only because both of them would probably been killed by the sky falling down as such an event would pretty much literally be the end of the world.
And they didn't even make it sound like a joke or anything, that line. Seriously, I believe it's
quite clear from this sit'es educational (meaning book-information based) content that it would never, ever EVER be too late from Marius to come over all paternal.
The loving father was all Lestat ever really needed and wanted from him and
seeing to how obsessive-sounding Lestat is about Marius in the books (and in this film as well), it's unmistakable his love for the man is deep and true... It would never be too late from Marius to pretty much anything, the very least to father him.
So Lestat would never say that. He wouldn't even
think that.
And in the original script Lestat does not say that. Why the hell did they stuff such an absurd line for him in the final version that is the film?
What
were they thinking??!
And that line of Marius's... makes it sound like he left because Lestat caused him too much trouble.
As explained above, it could not have been that. Not as long as this is supposed to base on the love in the books.
And as also explained above, there are the three more likely reasons for Marius's choice to leave that were nothing like the-you-almost-cost-me-everything bullshit.
And especially at the end of the world (even if it was caused by Lestat), Marius wouldn't leave him for any reason, so certainly not for 'almost costing him everything'.
This too is clear for one thing from the book quotes at My View section's extention.
The line doesn't make sense in the film's version either. So first he ditches Lestat for almost costing him everything and then when
Lestat refuses to listen to him again, Marius riskes his own life to try and save Lestat's - like, how much is THAT if not almost costing him literally everything?
By the way that line of Marius's either isn't in the earlier scripts, whereas he still does risk his life for Lestat's sake.
Also, in the film Marius says "You've just become hard to avoid these days, at least in conversation.", when Lestat asks why, after all that time, he's suddenly back.
And that's just as idiotic and out-of-character. Marius would not deliberately avoid Lestat, as he never even wanted to part with him in the first place (in the books.)
But I suppose the script writers, idiotically, thought that since they are not explaining anything about Lestat's mortal life and family relationships, they don't have to respect the relationship between him and Marius.
It's like...madness. In the book Marius, when he couldn't be physically there to defend and protect Lestat, Anne describes him to to 'desperately and protectively'
think of Lestat, during the concert and afterwards when they couldn't find Lestat and Akasha.
Marius would clearly do all in his power to try and protect Lestat from any harm, so certain someones can stuff that ditching Lestat and trying to avoid him up their-!!
Not only does the original script not have those lines but it does have Marius wanting to embrace Lestat and later he says "if you can not forgive me", making it pretty clear he
had missed Lestat and regretted leaving him so. So they, in the first place, did seem to want to respect it to a degree at least, so what the hell got into them?
The movie too however for one thing had Marius try to talk sense (partly also kinda knock, especialy in the original script), into Lestat's head about the whole Akasha matter, probably in an effort not to have to part with Lestat just yet (for the lifetime matter that unfortunately was not mentioned in this film),
but didn't seem to succeed, so he had to take the chance and part with him for the lifetime at that point.
I think they should've mentioned the live-out-your-lifetime-Lestat matter and also the reasons why it was important and necessary to do so
(even though if in the film's storyline it could've have been put far into the future.). It was important. Especially when they made the parting the way they did.
I think the way it seems as if Marius cared more about Akasha and Enkil than about Lestat, in the film, if not looked into more deeply - is a remain of the stupid way they made Marius in the film a bizzare combination of him and Magnus.
The earlier script had it a thousand times worse and I see they never lost the magnus-likeness enough really... but at least enough for it to be bearable.
To me it seems like the script writers wanted to do both as much at the same time: To show clearly the depth and strength and closeness of Lestat and Marius's love and bond,
(the original script has those moments where Marius shows affection towards Lestat as he does in the books but the final movie version has none of that), and also they wanted to keep Magnus in the film, through Marius way too much, (when they shouldn't be mixed at all.)
Trying to do both of those things together naturally leads to the weird, messy relationship that is either giving wrong impressions or confusing people, if they do not or can not think and look deeper into the relationship.
The final version, the actual film ended up having tons less of both of those aspects, while they should've lessened - a-hem, ok, completely erased... only the magnus-aspect, and kept all of the marius-aspects. To tell the trueful relationship
clearly.
What I miss the most is them showing affection to each other in all the ways that count in such a close and loving fater-son relationship.
But in this film they barely ever touch. The only moments they do are in Lestat's birth scene and in that it's just far too cold toned. The original script had it more in-character in it:
With Marius gently cupping Lestat's chin while saying "You've been brave enough for one night, my son." and with him kneeling beside Lestat and gently wiping Lestat's brow as his body was dying,
and saying the "Don't be afraid. It's only your body that dies." Just those would've given them so much more true depth. Marius would've been closer to the compassionate, loving person, who cares about his boy's feelings
and wants to comfort him.
The only other moment, where they touch is when Lestat's broken free from one of the chains and Marius pins him back, and soon when Marius grabs Lestat's face forcing him to llook at him.
Those were father-son kind yes, but in their angry tone, them alone do not give the true image of this relationship. I can't even count how many times I have needed
even one heartfelt embrace between them when making fan videos! And in the book they share one, a long one, in the parting scene.
I'm no longer sure how clearly the true relationship after all is seeable in the film because the film truly fucks it up and I just for some reason noticed the truth under it all and
ever since I've been so devoted to the books' version of it that the versions' have probably come together in my head long ago.
MARIUS & RAISING LESTAT?
Also some fans complain that the book Marius is a lot more gentle sweetheart (when it comes to Lestat) than the Marius in the movie and how that's a bad change.
I agree he really is that but it's not a bad change all in all, though as I just said, he should be more like in the books in the gentleness and such.
But the film Marius doesn't totally lack the gentleness and infinite compassion.
I do love the Marius in the books but I also think he's somewhat colourless until in 'The Vampire Armand' is revealed some flaws and more personality features,
which after all makes him anything but colourless.
But the point here is anyways the way he is with Lestat.
And that, is rather colourless. The colourlessness has a logic ad probably even a goal but seeing to The Vampire Armand revealations, it could've been more colourfully working relationship too.
In the raising Lestat matter - the books' Marius clearly didn't want Lestat to change at all, not a bit. He enjoys the
resultless scolding and complaining and useless efforts to make Lestat not break the rules,
as much as Lestat enjoys breaking them. They work in perfect chemistry like that and are entertaining but
for a longer shot that gets colourless and you start wishing for something new, while you do still very much enjoy the same old thing.
The film's version however is a tad too much the other opposite - some of the book's Marius in and it'd been perfect.
The next 5 paragraphs would fit better into My View section but whatever... it has a significant deal to do with the change of the tone of their relationship in the film.
Lestat's the uultimate Brat, who always finds new and exciting ways to be rebelious and break rules and that is so very much pointed out in his character, who still is so much more than that too.
As of course raising a child is about many other things too than just discipline and I think all other elements were perfectly right in Lestat & Marius relationship in the books - but because Lestat's bratness is so major element of him, it makes the (lack of) discipline element significant - and I'd have enjoyed this even more in the books too if there was a chance to think "what's gonna happen next", "how's he going to react to that?", "what will be the consequense for that?" and so on. But all that was obvious.
the same old resultless scolding. No consequenses really that would make any difference seeing to the next time Lestat thought it might be a good time to break a rule, and thus it went round and round and round again.
Maybe Anne planned it so, thinking about the Tale of the Body Thief incident, where Marius punishes Lestat for the first time and in extreme way
and I mean, Lestat probably ended up doing what he did exactly for one reason because there had been no real consequenses for anything before.
That and what didn't happen because of him finally being punished and in such an extreme way, is the ultimate way to show the extremely strong and unbreakable love, bond and trust between them. But still...
As she really wrote them extremely close and strong in bond and love, and Lestat clearly took, loved and tursted him as his father - Marius could've laid the boundaries
and followed with punishments for breaking them, all along - after all it's part of loving a child.
But of course Marius could never begin to punish Lestat every time the kid steps out of line, firstly because he doesn't want Lestat to change too much, secondly because Marius has a sense of humour and thirdly because doing so would take too much of his time.
Seeing to the depth and strength of the relationship the consequenses, when really needed, could've been various - even the most extreme as a spanking.
It was a very regular and common method of home discipline, for so long the world had no laws what-so-ever on it but parents were allowed to discipline their children however they saw fit
and the world wasn't filled woth psychos and emotionally cripplled kids. Until late 20th century world made a huge issue about it for no valid reason.
So certainly in 1700's it was nothing special even with teenagers.
(And Lestat isn't even purely that but also emotionally a very young child and as said, a complete brat.)
We know for a fact Lestat's mortal father and brothers used to whip him but they did it out of hate and loathing and for unfair reasons and so it was more likely abuse - while Marius would certainly do it out of love and never unless really fit for the offense so it would not be abuse but a punishment out of love.
And that difference makes a hell of a great deal in the affect of the punishment.
Reading from 'The Vampire Armand' I became even more certain that it truly
could and it lampood to me the base of some fan art comics I've seen;
I see Marius's controlling nature indeed has included also whippings (but I suppose always for a good reason) - though quite extremely severe whippings too,
which are not the kind I am thinking of in Lestat's case - but
there was many very significant elements totally different in The Vampire Armand:
The community Marius lead was not a family but a school of that century and his relationship with Armand was strongly romantic and sexual. And because of the school nature of the community Armand and the other kids called him 'master' and 'sir'
just like sttudents do with their mentors or principals - while with Lestat, it's a pure parental and family thing, where Lestat calls him just 'Marius' and might very well sometimes say 'dad' - well, actually I can't imagine Lestat using that modern day word too often but the point is the same.
Thus, I believe Marius
could physically discipline / whip Lestat as well, but only with loving tone even if severely and without getting any pleasure of it, and anyway would keep from it until all else fails or
Lestat being in the far side of his infamous impossibleness. He was a father to Lestat, not a master, and the love he felt was earnest parenting, not simple leadership, romantic and certainly not sexual.
Of course no one's perfect and everyone has bad days...and even the most gentle and patient parents have their limits in how much shit they can watch their kids pull and remain gentle
regardless of if the current situation really is too big deal.
All this analysing is trying to lead you up to my opinion that I think seeing to how deep Lestat's yearning for a father-figure is, and to his childlike and bratty persona and Marius's unconditionally, earnestly and patiently loving fathering, Lestat'd been just as happy in the better working kind relationship
and Marius very much able to keep it as such. In My View's My Top3 Reasons, (Lestat with Marius, reason 3), I go more indepth with the Tale of the Body Thief incident and how it supports all that I'm saying right here.
The movie makers seemed to think something like me. See, in the movie Marius had more temper
and in a way he was more determined and he clearly tried to have some progress in Lestat's attitudes and behavour -
he really cared about what Lestat's undertakings might cause and tried to make a difference instead of just enjoying resultless scolding like in the books.
But still I don't think he wanted Lestat to change all too much.
(As if Lestat even ever would - he's hopeless and loveable like that.)
But as said, the huge mistake in the film was to ignore completely the physical gentleness and affection from both's side but especially from Marius's.
It's something Lestat really needed after all the coldness and abuse he went through in his mortal family relationships,
as well as he clearly needed physical restraining and discipline.
The healthy balance in the discipline element of this relationship is what's missing in both of the versions, yet what I think Marius would very well be able of keeping.
And it's what the film makers in the first place intended to go for, but were confused with their own stupid magnus-marius mixing hobby, (see the earlier scripts.)
And, it's what I think would make this relationship all the more entertaining and better -
as long as the beautiful, deep, affectionate and extremely strongly loving and protective tone is there the same as it is in the books
because those elements are the primary need of Lestat's.
But even without that balance, I think this relationship is just perfectly loveable and it's totally in my heartbeat.
And even though the absence of the balance in th books had a great point to it, in my fan visions, the balance exsists.
And I'm quite sure that the balance began to exsist at least to a degree, in cannon too after the Body Thief incident.
After all, Lestat had now done so wrong it had cost him being cast out by everyone and almost cost him his life.
The loving father that Marius is, wouldn't take the risk of something similiar happening again.