#(minus ann being barely in the ep. i feel like her meeting up with the gang couldve been its own episode

[rottenbrainstuff]

IWTV Season 2 ep 1+2: getting to the good stuff now!

I like that they expanded the events in Eastern Europe ep 1 and added in the mother character. As I keep saying, it's been something like 20 years since I read the book but I do remember that that part was brief and disappointing. I mean, it's supposed to be disappointing: Claudia and Louis desperately want to find others like them and they think vampire old country is the place to start, and all they manage to find is a filthy revenant barely better than an animal, and they leave. But as a reader generally it was disappointing to me. Anne Rice's vampires were so ridiculously eurocentric (I know there we got into ancient Egypt, but, and I know this sounds weird, ancient Egypt is actually part of eurocentrism, it's a whole thing) and I dunno, when I really think back on it it just seems so silly, the only vampires that matter were all in western Europe?

In this episode I didn't feel that frustration. It did a better job at showing, well, maybe there's not much here NOW, but you get a sense that there used to be something here, and Claudia and Louis have missed it.

I understand the logistics of why they couldn't have a younger actress for Claudia, but I will forever wish that it would somehow have been possible. I like the shifting of Claudia and Louis' relationship now and how now they're equals at least, and Claudia even often takes the lead and Louis relies on her, and this would have been even more interesting if the actress looked even younger. But! It's a small complaint and again, again, I do understand why it is the way it is.

Then episode 2: AUGH. The Paris vampires are just....... *chef's kiss* unbelievable. I loved Armand's demented coven in the books, they got the barest briefest little flat appearance in the movie, and now here they are, fleshed out and delicious and absolutely PERFECT. They're insufferable, they're interesting, they're dangerous and poor Claudia has absolutely no clue. Well. I think deep down she has a clue, she just doesn't care, because this is what she wants and she's convinced herself it will be ok. (sigh Claudia)

I do like they've established right away that Lestat was an important person to them. As much as I liked the Paris parts in the book, I remember feeling like the coven's persecution of Louis and Claudia didn't make a huge amount of sense to me at the time. These travellers, these outsiders, being held to these rules that they didn't know about, accused of a crime that didn't happen here, judged and punished by a group of people who have nothing to do with them and really no authority over them at all. Especially when the coven is behaving so hedonistically in every other way you can imagine. Ok whatever, suspension of disbelief, it shows, I guess, that the coven is dangerous and confusing and spiteful, ok whatever. I guess you could say as well it was all orchestrated by Armand as an elaborate plan to get rid of Claudia and have Louis to himself, ok whatever. I guess when you really think about it, book Claudia being only five years old is quite horrific and I could see why other vampires would totally and completely reject her and by extension Louis based on that on its own, sure.

But if you emphasize early on that Lestat has some history here and is an important person they looked up to, then it's not just "oops we might have broke some vague vampire law that we didn't know was a law up until now" but instead it's "oops we murdered the muse of this theater" and that just works better.

But speaking of changes from the book... I was trying to explain to my daughter that nothing that happens in this show actually happens in the book. (which surprised her a lot: no Dreamstat? No sister Grace and nieces and nephews? No masquerade ball? etc) I think Louis' meeting with Armand and the intro of the vampire theater is the first thing I've seen so far that actually sticks more or less to how it happened in the book (minus Santiago being at the initial meeting, minus Armand stepping in in the play) and I think that's really neat. Like, I think the changes they've made so far are all smart and I enjoy it, it keeps me on my back foot not knowing what exactly will happen next, I think this is a masterclass in how to adapt something for a different medium and context, but somehow I also think it's really really neat that this one section is almost exactly the same.

Every time they throw a little reference back to the movie, with recognizable camera shots, or with wardrobe, or even sometimes with lines, it makes me so weirdly happy, somehow. I'm not sure exactly why. I think it's a case of... I don't hold the old movie in very high regard these days, but I do remember it being important to me when I was younger, and these little references are almost like the show is reminding me, look, don't feel bad about enjoying that movie so much, there were good things there as well, let me show you. Or something?

Augh, perfection, perfection.

Coincidentally, my daughter visited Prague shortly after I watched this and found the outdoor location they shot the theatre entrance at and that was super neat.

I am just squealing with delight over how much I love Assad Zaman. I love how larger than life all the other vampires are that we've seen so far, Lestat, and Santiago, and all the other Paris vampires. And here's Armand, looks small, looks young, looks angelic, tiny little mouth that's too small for his face, quiet, calm, but his eyes are burning like a panther in a bush, watching you, and you know you're fucked.