The document analyzes the character of Claudia in the 1994 film Interview with the Vampire. It argues that Claudia represents the "horror doll" motif in the film through how other characters treat her as a doll and not a child. Claudia embodies what dolls symbolize in horror - an unsettling imitation of life. Her role as a doll is reinforced through gifts of dolls from Lestat and how Louis and Madeline see her as a "memento" of the children they lost. Overall, the document examines how Claudia fulfills the symbolic role of the horror doll in the film.

1. Sample Short Essay
“Only the Doll Had a Human Face”:
The Vampire Child as Horror Doll
In her essay, Eva-Maria Simms summarizes the
symbiotic relationship between dolls and horror, stating:
“Without the child’s compassion and imagination, the doll is a
corpse” (676). That is to say, when the doll is removed from its
cultural context as a companion for female children, it is no
longer viewed as a “source of comfort” (Mitchell 54). Instead, it
is viewed as a symbol of malevolence and fear, as exemplified
throughout the years by horror films such as Child’s
Play (1988) and The Conjuring (2013; Mitchell 53-54). Neil
Jordan’s Interview with the Vampire (1994) is no exception to
this genre trend. It embraces it wholeheartedly, with one of its
pivotal characters—the vampire child Claudia—represented as
the film’s “doll” motif through not only her hair and clothing
but through other characters, as well. Furthermore, as Claudia is
symbolically linked to dolls by the film’s mise-en-scène, dolls
and all they represent are, in turn, symbolically linked to
Claudia. Thus, more than any physical doll in the film, Claudia
embodies the “horror” doll and its role of a “lifeless facsimile
of a living being” as well as of “emptiness, death, and futility”
(Mitchell 53; Simms 666).
Throughout Interview with the Vampire, Claudia is
viewed through the eyes of the on-screen characters and off-
screen audience as a doll made flesh. Both of her vampiric
guardians Louis and Lestat reinforce this perception of Claudia
by treating her as one would treat a doll, not as one would treat
a child and, as the film progresses, an adult. As Claudia states
in a moment of frustration to Lestat: “You dress me like a doll.
You make my hair like a doll. Why?” This exchange is
representative of her mounting frustration towards Louis and
Lestat as she is routinely denied any agency by them. Instead,

2. they ignore obvious signs of her mental maturation, such as her
longing for an adult body, as it does not fit the role that they
have created for her within their “nuclear family of vampires”
(Mitchell 58; Benefiel 263). In other words, they—and by
extension the audience—see her as they want her to be and not
as she is. Her identity, independent of her representation as the
“horror” doll, is overshadowed as Claudia is confined to the
role of the “doll-like creature that acts as a memento of the life
it once embodied” (Mitchell 55). Claudia’s “continued shared
identity with her dolls” is further reinforced by Lestat gifting
her dolls each year on the anniversary of her death (Mitchell
57). These yearly gifts are not truly meant for Claudia, as they
continue long after she has outgrown dolls. Rather, these gifts
are meant for LouisandLestat as they need them in order to
continue to see her as a doll and not as an independent being.
Additionally, the dolls gifted to Claudia have the added
effect of reminding Louis that, ultimately, he is what killed her.
Like the doll haunted by the ghost of its deceased owner as seen
in so many horror films before and since Interview with the
Vampire, Claudia is a constant aide-mémoire of the little girl
that Louis killed. She haunts the “lifeless . . . corpse” she
inhabits: never growing old, but remaining forever at the age
which she died (Gonzalez 340). Claudia as “facsimile” is
further stressed by her relationship with Madeline, a doll maker
who later on becomes her vampire guardian. As stated by
Mitchell, the store that Madeline owns “encompasses the notion
of the doll as a memento infanti in the most literal sense” as the
dolls Madeline makes are crafted in her deceased daughter’s
image (58). Since Claudia bears a striking resemblance to her
daughter, she “[unifies] . . . corpse and doll” in Madeline’s
eyes, acting as a “memory . . . of a child that no longer exists,”
ultimately leading to Madeline assuming the part of Claudia’s
caregiver (Mitchell 58).
Claudia’s role of “memento infanti” is one that occurs
off-screen, as well. Anne Rice, the author of the novel from
which the film is adapted, modeled Claudia’s looks after her

3. own daughter, Michele, who was five-years-old when she
passed away from leukemia (Ramsland 65; Mitchell 55). The
shared physical appearance coupled with the shared death from
what are both blood diseases—vampirism in Claudia’s case and
leukemia in Michele’s—leads to Claudia serving as an imitation
of Michele, the same way dolls imitate little girls (Mitchell 55).
As Rice stated in an interview (qtd. in Ramsland): “I wasn’t
conscious of the connection [between Michele and Claudia] . . .
but there’s no question that this is the symbolic working out of
a terrible grief. What else can it possibly be?” (65).
In summary, Claudia acts as Interview with the
Vampire’s doll motif. She fulfills the role of “horror” doll by
representing all that such dolls represent: an unsettling
imitation of the living girl. As with physical dolls, when
Claudia is removed from “the child’s compassion and
imagination” (i.e., when she is turned into a vampire), she
becomes a “corpse” that serves as a “facsimile of a living
being” (i.e., the little girl she once was; Simms 676; Mitchell
53). As previously mentioned, her role as the film’s symbolic
doll is further stressed by how she is treated by the other
characters. To Louis and Madeline, she serves as a “memento
infanti” which haunts them (Mitchell 57-58). To Lestat, she is
continuously linked to dollhood via his yearly gifts to her.
Finally, she serves as a representation of Rice’s daughter
Michele, the same way that dolls represent girls (Mitchell 55).
Works Cited
Benefiel, Candace R. “Blood Relations: The Gothic Perversion
of the Nuclear Family in Anne Rice’s Interview with the
Vampire.” The Journal of Popular Culture, vol. 38, no. 2, 2004,
pp. 261-273.
Gonzalez, Eugenia. “‘What Remains? an Empty Doll-Case’:
Deconstruction and Imagination in Victorian Narratives of Doll
Production.” Journal of Victorian Culture, vol. 18, no. 3, 2013,

4. pp. 335-349.
Interview with the Vampire. Directed by Neil Jordan,
performance by Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise, Warner Bros., 11
Nov. 1994. YouTube Movies, https://youtu.be/X-Kib-WiIms.
Mitchell, Donna. “Doll as a Memento Infanti.” Interdisciplinary
Humanities, vol. 33, no. 3, 2016, pp. 53-65.
Ramsland, Katherine. The Vampire Companion: The Official
Guide to Anne Rice’s The Vampire Chronicles. New York:
Ballantine Books, 1993. Print.
Simms, Eva-Maria. “Uncanny Dolls: Images of Death in Rilke
and Freud.” New Literary History, vol. 27, no. 4, 1996, pp. 663-
677.
This is the movie I choose!
Perfume: The Story of a Murderer
You can write on any film we have discussed in class. Please
read the instructions and guidelines about writing essays before
you start.
Please choose your own topic for your essay and have a catchy
title!
If you're unsure about your essay topic, here are a
few suggestions:
In your opinion, can Jean-Baptiste Grenouille actually be
considered a vampire? Why or why not?
What were the different techniques that were used to depict
smell in the film? Elaborate on the most effective and least
effective technique.
What does Tom Tykwer's portrayal of humans throughout the
film suggest about humanity as a whole? Are its implications
specific to this time period, or are they relevant in today's
society?
Short Essay: Instructions and Guidelines
Important!!!!!! have to read this carefully!!!

5. Your short essay should consist of 800-1000 words and must
include and refer to three secondary sources, only one of which
can be from Wikipedia. Our assigned readings and viewings will
not count as secondary sources.
Start your online research by accessing the UVic Library.
You may write on any aspect of one of the films we've
discussed in this class. Please do not try to write about the
whole film, but focus on one aspect/detail you want to analyze.
The short essay responses will be marked for grammar, clarity
of writing, and organization, in addition to content, analysis,
and originality.
Short essays will be graded according to the UVic Grading
Scale.
Structuring your essay:
-Your essay should include: a) introduction paragraph; b) three
to four body paragraphs; c) conclusion paragraph; d) “Works
Cited” section.
-In your introduction, include a thesis statement explaining not
only what you are going to argue in your essay, but why what
you are going to argue is significant. Make sure your thesis is
specific.
-Your body paragraphs should support the thesis statement in
your introduction. Do not just summarize plot points – analyze
the film, using specific examples from the film to support your
ideas. Include in-text citations.
-Your conclusion should reiterate your thesis and summarize
how each of your points supported your overall argument.
-Always include a “Works Cited” list at the end of your essay
(see example below).
GUIDELINES FOR WRITING FILM CRITICISM
Let's start with the difference between a review and criticism. A
reviewer writes for those who haven't seen the film, as a kind of
consumer guide, and is usually concerned with value

6. judgements (is the film under consideration worth the price of
admission?). The critic writes for those who have seen the film,
as part of a critical dialogue, and is concerned with articulating
the film's thematic concerns (what meanings arise from the
narrative concerns and the formal devices of the film?). Because
you will be writing criticism and not reviews, your essays
should not summarize the plot. When writing film criticism,
assume the reader has seen the film. Criticism means developing
an argument and supporting it with evidence from the film, not
delivering opinion. Here's an example:
You've probably had a conversation like this:
Heh, have you seen PSYCHO?
Yeah, I hated it.
Oh...I loved it.
Oh.
On a scale from 1 - 10 (5 passes) either of these "reviews"
(love/hate) would rank as -1 (and that would be generous). It is
sheer opinion without any substantiation at all. Opinion must be
substantiated. Let's take the "loved it" response and see how it
could be improved:
I loved the suspense.
This gets a 1 since some specificity has been added. But that's
all.
I loved the way Hitchcock got me so involved. I was really
frightened a lot. He certainly is a master of suspense. His use of
staircases and bathrooms was really scary. This is still weak and
would get a 2 or 3. It's very subjective and chatty. It lacks a
clear thesis. Words like "really," "certainly," and "scary" are
too vague. The paragraph has little coherence. Much more
precision is needed. I loved the way the film creates suspense
and involvement effectively. Hitchcock does not just scare us or
show us horrible things. He involves us with his characters and
shows how there is something sinister in all of us, even as
viewers.
This is better. It might get a 4. Notice that by now whether you

7. loved PSYCHO or not has little impact on the argument. The
paragraph is more than a simple statement of likes and dislikes.
The first sentence could begin, "PSYCHO creates suspense and
involvement effectively" and not lose any of its force. Opinion,
as such, has become secondary to a thesis. This is the beginning
of a critical/analytical perspective. (What's lacking is further
clarification of the thesis, substantiation with examples from
the film to support the argument, and stronger organization of
the composition.) The last sentence, for example, introduces the
viewer but doesn't make it at all clear how the viewer might be
"sinister."
PSYCHO builds suspense by making us identify with
characters strongly. We care about their fate and when they find
themselves threatened, we want them to overcome danger
successfully. Hitchcock builds this identification carefully
through point-of-view editing, acting, and dialogue. With these
formal means, he not only makes us care about people, he also
makes us want dangerous, frightening things to happen to them
so that we have something to care about. In this way Hitchcock
questions our own morality. This point is made particularly
vivid by our shift in identification from Marion to Norman. We
want Norman to protect his mother, and himself even though we
realize he is covering up a crime. But we also want to see him
faced with difficulties (like the car that may not sink, or
Arbogast's curiosity). These are desires we would feel guilty
about in real life but the structure of Hitchcock's film
encourages us to have them. We now need to examine in
greater detail how Hitchcock gets us to shift our identification
from Marion to Norman and to recognize our own darker
impulses.
This is better, though somewhat dense; it might earn a 6. The
lead sentence introduces the theme clearly. The rest of the
paragraph elaborates the point. The paragraph also reworks
ideas in the earlier example and expresses them more
effectively.

8. What remains to be seen is how well the argument can be
substantiated by concrete references and specific examples
involving formal devices such as editing, acting, and dialogue
(without summarizing). This will develop a theme, at the
expense of a general, overall impression of the film's worth
(reviewing). Opinion is present (the critique implies that the
film succeeds in an important task through formally appropriate
means), but opinion only prompts or motivates the criticism, it
does not begin and end it. A provocative, clear theme developed
in relation to specific, cinematic qualities -- lighting, acting,
camera angle or movement, editing, the juxtaposition of images
and sound, the role of dialogue, or pace etc. -- allows an
interpretation of the film to emerge that acknowledges both the
actual texture of the film and your experience of it. (originally
distributed by Film Studies, Queen's University)
A plot summary of who did what, when and where or a
description of shots and angles (however eloquent) are NOT
adequate work for this course.
Your essays should advance an argument about what the
sequence or film under consideration is saying thematically --
this argument (your thesis) must be clearly stated in the
introduction. Consider what meanings (thematic implications)
are constructed by the use of certain cinematic features (such as
lighting, editing, sound, dialogue, characterization, narrative
structure, setting). The theme may be thought of as what the
film is "saying" about what it depicts -- remember, no film is
neutral. One word is not a theme. For example, to say that
EASY RIDER is about freedom is not enough. To say, however,
that EASY RIDER is about the impossibility of finding freedom
gets at the thematic concerns. It is also not enough to say that
some device progresses the plot -- remember, you need to
advance an argument about the meanings created. Suspense
itself is not a theme. It is a device that can carry thematic
significance, but you must state how suspense is used and to

9. what thematic end. Your argument is constructed by seeing and
analyzing relationships among the parts. For example, consider
contrasts (what oppositions does the film set up?), and
similarities (pay attention to recurring features -- "running
motifs"). It is also important to account for the juxtapositioning
of shots -- a shot may be read in relation to what comes after or
before. Cause and effect relationships are also important (if the
film depicts a disaster, who and/or what does it blame?). You
should also pay attention to changes in narrative progression
and/or the characters.
You don't have to talk about everything in the
sequence/film, but you do need to support your argument about
the thematic concerns with sufficient evidence. Concrete
examples are a central feature of an analysis since they provide
the justification for your argument. An analysis should not only
provide evidence, it should also demonstrate how that evidence
supports the argument/thesis being advanced. While you need to
invoke aspects of the film for your examples, avoid excessive
description. For example, if you are arguing that a character is
constructed in a certain way, only cite the evidence that
supports your analysis -- avoid details that don't add anything to
your argument -- if a character's clothing is not important for
your analysis, don't bother describing it. If you're not making a
thematic point about your observations you're likely being
overly descriptive.
A weak paper is simply descriptive with no attempt to pull
out the possible implications of what the writer observes. In
order to transform the descriptive into the analytical, ask
yourself "So what?" "What are the thematic implications of
what I've observed?". It is not enough, for example, to say
something is contrasted with something else -- consider what is
being said about the contrast. The point is not to write
something with which you think the reader will agree, but to
convince him or her that your thesis is solid because you can

10. justify your assertions with examples. You must end your essays
with a conclusion that re-states and ties up your argument.
Don't organize your papers according to the narrative
progression -- i.e. starting with the first scene and ending with
the last. Organize according to thematic concerns. Aim for an
organization that logically develops/builds your argument.
There should be a smooth flow from one idea to the next. It is
usually a good idea to begin a paragraph with the point you are
making (the thematic implication), and then supply the evidence
that supports your analysis. The introduction should include not
only your thesis statement, but also an indication of how you
will develop your argument -- think of it as an orientation or
guide for your reader. By the end of your first (or second)
paragraph the reader should know what you are going to argue
and how you will go about doing it.
There is no one right interpretation, there are, however,
better interpretations than others. Make sure the film supports
your reading of it. If, for example, there is evidence that
contradicts your interpretation, you must account for it.
Bibliography
You must cite your secondary sources in a bibliography. If you
use someone's idea (whether it is a direct quotation or not) you
must give credit. Use parenthetical references, i.e. (Rentschler
234) not footnotes or endnotes. Footnotes should only be used
for information that exceeds bibliographical references.
A film entry usually begins with the title, in italics, and
includes the director and the year. You may include other data
that seem pertinent - such as the names of the writer,
performers, and producer - between the title and the distributor.
Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror. Dir. F.W. Murnau. 1922.
Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror. Dir. F.W. Murnau. Perf. Max
Schreck, Gustav von Wangenheim, Greta Schröder. 1922.

11. If you are citing the contribution of a particular individual,
begin with that person's name.
Schreck, Max, perf. Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror. Dir.
F.W. Murnau, 1922.
Please note: Only list works cited, ie only articles or other
references which you quoted, paraphrased or otherwise directly
referred to in your essay.
Type and double space. Length is calculated according to the
number of words (250) on a standard typed page. Don't increase
or decrease the font size to meet the page requirement.
Use the present tense. Whatever happens in the film happens
every time it is run.
Choose your words carefully. Avoid superlatives ("fascinating,"
"genius") and vague terms ("interesting"). Be specific. Aim for
a clear style -- try reading your work out loud -- if it doesn't
make sense to the ear, it won't make sense to the eye. This is
also a good way to eliminate convoluted sentences -- any
sentence that causes you to gasp for breath is too long.
Number your pages and proof read.
(based on History in Art 295 outline)