#armand apologist you say????

[duriens]

i know everybody has their opinions on why armand 'couldnt/could prevent it' and it is very interesting to read the various interpretations. the way i see it, there are three possibilities (and i'm for the third, spoiler alert):

one, armand couldnt prevent it because, even as a centuries-old vampire, he genuinely doesn't have the power to stop 13 vampires from eventually coming after him/him+louis if he didn't accept their ultimatum. he can make them faint, he can freeze time, he can sway the mind of the audience (with some difficulty...? true or false?) but how long can he keep these powers up and can he do it forever, for however long vampires' grudges last? he might have thought it was possible for him and louis to run away, but that eventually the coven would've found a way to manage to kill him. there's power in numbers? how powerful are centuries-old vampires, exactly? is the combined power of 13 angry vampires enough? armand himself says at some point 'they might've killed me' or smth along the line, meaning he at least believes them capable of trying to kill him. is he that afraid of confronting the coven, of doing battle with them, of failing and dying? (this is the blandest possibility)

second, armand couldnt prevent it because he didnt want to prevent it. armand is a master manipulator and he likes to manipulate others into destroying the things he's bored of/he's lost control over (the children of darkness, the theatre des vampires... his relationship with louis?) cause he doesn't want to take on the responsibilities that come with that destruction, and the eventual guilt/sorrow. armand is minimizing his role in deceiving louis and claudia and is portraying himself as helpless, a centuries-old vampire with limits to his powers, so much so that even the act of making the audience say one thing over the other takes a toll on him, cause it was so hard to just do that one thing, owwie, of course he saved it to when it came to louis' turn for the sentencing.

this is the armand we think of when we see the memes about his inaction, thinking he's smirking to himself bc he knows he could end it with a snap of his fingers.

now we all know that armand is manipulative and that he likes to be in control even when he cedes control, but is he always and in constant awareness of the degrees of his own manipulation and scheming? is he in control of all that, all the time?? does he do it purposefully, with evil intent, consciously selling out louis and claudia and agreeing to a plan involving lestat to get rid of the coven/santiago and consciously pretending to be weaker than he is to get rid of claudia? so this leads inevitably to

third, armand couldnt prevent it because he convinced himself long ago that he is completely helpless and no word or action of his could ever, ever, change a thing. this state of mind he's fallen into has obvious ties to his past, his slavery, his submissive tendencies, his inability to act and decide for himself. he's created this image of himself of someone weaker and powerless that he fully believes to be true, he manipulates others the same way he manipulates himself. his many expressions of grief, of sorrow, of guilt throughout the episodes are genuine because, at some level, he genuinely believes he 'could not prevent it', because he decided long ago he's the kind of person who simply can't on his own--that can't ever, ever be accused of serious stuff because in this narrative he created for himself he can never be a hundred percent at fault, he doesn't bear all the responsibilities. (he's still a manipulative and controlling individual here, just not as shrewd and consciously cunning as in option 2). in this light, the memes about armand doing nothing when he has the power to act become tragic in their own way, because it's tragic that he truly thinks of himself, a centuries-old vampire leader of the paris coven, as powerless and helpless as he had been when he was still alive.

[atlasblue85]

just copying this mostly verbatim from the dms but I think the difference between armand and louis that I really haven't seen anyone talk about yet is that yes they are both lying and deeply unreliable narrators but

we've seen time and time again with Louis that he believes exactly what he is saying at any given moment, believes it 100%, and only retracts when there's another source disputing it. we see it way at the beginning of the season with Claudia and her being able to dream, we see it in San francisco which admittedly his memories were fucked with there but still, and we see it again this episode with Lestat's version of how Claudia was made. I don't necessarily trust that Lestat's version is true either because Louis will just claim whichever he believes at the time. Even though lestat was lying about so much of what happened and their relationship for whatever reason Louis was willing to take at face value that this other version was correct. Louis WANTS to be telling the truth, the absolute truth, at all times, but unintentionally makes himself a liar by wholeheartedly believing incorrect memories.

whereas Armand, on the other hand, is a fully aware liar. he knows exactly what lies he is telling and when and where, and is deploying them with purposeful reason. A lot of people want to say he is lying all the time but like, the best lies contain the truth and armand knows that better than anyone. I would argue that he is actually the most reliable character because he's not prone to rewriting history to his own benefit the way Louis and lestat are. this next bit is from @doux-amer "does he do it [rewrite history]? yeah, but he's much more meticulous and does it more sparingly or at least does it in smaller doses whereas louis and lestat like to do sweeping changes (they are also super dramatic lmao vs. armand who's much more collected even if he's just as emotionally ruined)" Armand is telling as much truth as possible in order to more convincingly sell the lies when he does tell them.

[nicoleanell]

Still on my kick of meta-ing about IWTV season 2 a few months too late. LOUMAND FIGHT TIME. I gotta be sad about something real quick.

There's definitely a thing in the Armand-apologist side of fandom (the street where I live) where it's often brought up that nothing Armand says in that argument is quite as vile and monstrous as the "groomed me into a little bitch" line. My obligatory disclaimer IN FAIRNESS TO LOUIS: (a) it's certainly not a one-sided fight and they do both get some very ugly hits in, (b) Armand was the sober one (I don't actually think that's much of an excuse but worth pointing out he immediately forgot what happened and apologized even BEFORE any mind-meddling), and (c) holy shit the rest of the episode exists and nothing that preceded Louis' suicide attempt was a justification for the way Armand reacted after it. Cool? Cool.

But still - yeah. That line is gross and extremely Not funny to me. It crosses such a huge line so fast there's almost nothing either of them could say to de-escalate from that. (In fact I'd argue it crosses a line FOR THE AUDIENCE more than it even registers as that bad to Armand, which in itself is kinda sad. Like… his instinct in that moment is laughing and throwing trauma insults back in a stupid Southern accent. He was - I cannot stress this enough - more upset by being called boring.)

I think there's something interesting about the fact that in universe the way Armand responds by mocking Louis' brother's suicide is just as horrible - because Paul's death is meant to be something that was formatively traumatic and life-changing for Louis - but I'm not sure that it fully hits the audience as viscerally terrible on the same level as making fun of Armand being raped by his daddy-vampire and others as. a. child.

But anyway, with the understanding no one came out taking the high road there... the thing that actually kills me about that exchange is we KNOW in that moment, watching them hurl these horrible horrible words at each other: these are things they opened up to each other about in the past. These are things they told each other. They've been together for decades already. This isn't a "digging into your head and pulling stuff out" kind of thing, like some fuckin' Daniel or whatever. This isn't common knowledge of their backstories just because the audience knows it already. They're both acting like "this is a thing you whine about all the time" when they've whined about it to vanishingly few people in the world, actually!!

Armand brings up Paul and Grace because Louis has talked about them, and he listened. Louis has told him about watching Paul step off the roof, about Grace at the cemetary. And Armand told Louis everything about Marius, and Louis filed that away in his brain with some extra words that Armand didn't use. At one point or another, they both unpacked the heaviest shit that ever happened to them and said "have this, I think it's why I am the way I am", they shared these things with each other in moments of intimacy and vulnerability and said "don't hurt me with this, obviously, okay?" And now they're here, unloading it all back onto each other as mockery. Yeah, I've heard you say all that stuff about your damage, and it's fucking pathetic and hilarious actually. It's not just like "I'm trying to hurt you by bringing this up", it's also "you've always sounded ridiculous to me when you talked about this stuff, you know that, right? I pretended to feel bad for you and I truly could not care less."

Like one of the reasons I think that scene is so jaw-dropping is there's so much intimacy and familiarity with each other implied and also shattered by it. And man how DO you ever get back from that. I would start the memory-erasing from that moment forward for sure.

[gremlinsminion]

Louis and Claudia's journey was hijacked by Armand and his coven; and considering his powerful mind gift, he had the upper hand since the beginning in the ability to see his memories and plan how to snare him. While Armand was relatively serious, Louis only wanted something casual, so Armand should've backed off at the start. Now if he had a problem with 'Arun', why not say so? Because he didn't! Because he wanted Louis to have that false sense of power, the power he didn't have with Lestat, in order to lure him to be his companion because he's so lonely. Louis should have walked away too, but he stayed in Paris for Claudia's safety, and Armand had knowledge of Lestat's murder as blackmail. So he continued the fling under duress. I was sympathetic to Armand until the last episode which is damning and we haven't even seen the full story. I don't believe he loved Louis, because how can you love someone and let them die? His past is no excuse. Armand had the agency not to threaten before humiliating Claudia in the theatre(to drive her away from Louis), not to plan the trial-play behind Louis' back, to warn Louis ahead of time to give them a chance of survival - or even leave Paris with Louis. These were all with intent! He was never serious about Louis before the trial, and Louis could probably sense his manipulations which is why he didn't take him seriously. Armand may not be 'evil', but compared to Louis' mistakes, many of his actions are unforgivable. Armand abused Louis 10x worse than Lestat ever did, and he ruined his life. Trying to turn Louis into his abuser is disgusting and delusional. The huge power imbalance is key here. The producers have said that we haven't seen the worst of him yet - it'll be interesting seeing apologists defend him then.

man you went into all this trouble of writing this, so i guess i’ll post, even tho i don’t have much to add to what i’ve already said. armand was more into louis than louis was into him, and louis’ affection was conditional. “if he had an issue with […] why not say so” — you’ve probably never been in a relationship, or maybe your relationship was super healthy, which is great of course, but in most relationships you keep certain things to yourself, esp if your partner’s moods and feelings depend on that.

so far everything they showed us about armand makes sense, and i can see myself doing the exact same thing and maybe regretting it later (or not). so, if in his worst he’s still human and believable with all the steps of how he got from a to b traceable, yeah, i will still love him and wish him best, and maybe learn from his mistakes a little

[firegiftlouis]

I refuse to directly engage with this person anymore since they are clearly a lost cause, but it’s hilarious they pull out the usual “Louis was a pimp and therefore that makes him the most evil of them all both now and forever” argument.

Like it’s painfully obvious people like this don’t actually care about examining why Louis being a pimp was bad, instead it’s a fucking trump card they use to excuse all of the racist, abuse apologist bullshit they say to justify why they would rather reframe Armand or Lestat as the real victims!

It doesn’t matter to them that the sexual slavery Armand went through is centuries removed from and very much unlike the legal red light district Storyville is both in the story and was in real life, they just need SOMETHING to be able to demonize Louis with. And won’t even stop to consider WHY they need to do that???

Like it’s genuinely insane how badly this person wants to imagine a world where Louis was actually the real abuser all along. Like the only cycle that repeated while Louis was with Armand is the one where Louis is in an abusive relationship with a significantly more powerful vampire, and yes actually, your need to rewrite the show in your head otherwise in order to enjoy it and whatever the fuck you ship IS really fucking weird and racist!

[murfpersonalblog]

I don't have to lie on people, that's why I screencap

Nalyra, as I'd screencapped AND linked in the post about Amel in question, your own anon thanked YOU for being the one who said "Amel possessed Lestat for the drop" in the first place. I didn't have to lie on you when your anon said it themselves.

Big talk saying NOW that blaming Amel would be abuse apologia, when months BEFORE you said you thought Ep5 the fight really was "NOT DOMESTIC ABUSE" at all!

--cuz YOU said multiple times how YOU didn't think Louis & Claudia were abused cuz they didn't act scared enough WTF?

Esp. since YOU go on & on about Amel possessing Lestat--

--when ACCORDING TO BOOK CANON AMEL'S NOT EVEN AWAKE when Loustat were living together, and Lestat said MULTIPLE times that he NEVER heard The Voice or felt compelled/contacted by Amel until YEARS AFTER Akasha was DEAD.

So yeah, you admitted the Drop happened once 2x7 aired, good for frikkin you--after campaigning for MONTHS BEFORE that the S2 revisit was gonna prove once & for all that it DIDN'T happen--you & your followers analyzing everything from Lestat's hairstyles to prove that Louis was "wrong" or Armand had inserted "fake" memories of the Drop or whatever it took to declare Lestat innocent--

You walking all your theories back NOW, AFTER the S2 revisit, doesn't negate the fact that it was YOUR theories (even BEFORE Sam's interview) that opened the can of worms in the first place on people thinking the Drop wasn't even real, let alone Amel's fault--all in an effort to point the finger at someone or something OTHER than Monsieur Lestat de Lioncourt HIMSELF for Ep5!

And I ALSO pointed out how in the same breath of walking back the Amel blame you STILL accused Louis of starting the fight, like wtf? It's STILL finding ways to absolve Lestat of responsibility, by victim blaming a father for protecting his daughter from being attacked--when even SAM said "it's not worth" wondering what would've happened if Louis had just backed down. Cuz that's ABUSE APOLOGIA & victim blaming and it makes you look weird as hell!

Anyone who thinks a parent protecting his own child from having her neck snapped is the one who "kindles" a fight is severely screwed in the head!

First you say Amel's possessing Les, then you walk it back and double down on saying Louis kindled/started the fight cuz he had the NERVE, the unmitigated GALL to throw himself at Lestat while his own kid was being choked TF out in front of him. But I'M lying on you for for calling out how you pivot every time one of your wack theories is proven WRONG?

And I DO know what Sam said--cuz I posted the whole transcription--which is that the Akasha bit was REMOVED from the S1 script, cuz spirit possession is effing irrelevant in a story about *gasp* DOMESTIC ABUSE, and that if AMC decides to use it to absolve/excuse Lestat in later seasons it'll be blasted for precisely what it is: ABUSE APOLOGIA to handwave that what Les did to Lou wasn't his fault. ANY entertainment of a theory like that is an IMMEDIATE red flag about why one would be so gung-ho to make the Drop less awful than it really was--and THAT is why I take issue with you & your anons who subscribe(d) to it, past, present or future.

But there y'all go, always acting persecuted and saying YOU'RE pissed, when all you're doing is ENCOURAGING & CREATING the bad takes in the fandom that have people constantly saying that someone who got abused by their S.O. is the one who should be to blamed!

Oh, so you understand what endorsement means wrt not being perceived as an abuse apologist--but you suddenly have a seizure when the racially coded language you historically & particularly love using wrt to Bipoc fans is called on the carpet (a la "them" "those people" "that subset" "that side of the fandom," etc), huh?

Your thinly veiled effing racist rhetoric ain't slick; you've been talking that way about Bipocs for ages now, like people don't know who the heck #Them is, when you and your fellows bigots throw shade at anyone who dares to look at Lestat with a critical eye & speak openly about the racial optics of a Black man getting his arse beat by a white man y'all are so quick to say is innocent & the Black man's either crazy or lying or both.

Cuz YES, Ep5 has created a domino effect in the fandom that's NOT gonna stfu & go away; and just cuz popular consensus says the sky is purple doesn't mean other people don't have eyes and can't see for themselves what the heck is going on around them.

Rolin wanted to start a dialogue about power dynamics, abuse, and yes darlings, even race, and here it is--stay mad.

Sweetie, I don't even have you blocked. I don't need to use a burner account when I can just type interview with the vampire or iwtv in the search bar on the dashboard and your posts are up & down the dang screen along with everyone else's. Learn how Tumblr works before you try that on me again.

[amadeoapologist]

i also think armand fundamentally does not know how to make people happy because he himself is unhappy. i was talking with my friend about louis and how louis still uses human markers of wealth and success that lestat and claudia and armand don't understand. louis wants to own things, he wants to invest in profitable endeavors. i don't think he wants to laze about in his wealth, but he wants to work hard and have it pay off and he wants to see the tangible products of his efforts.

and i'm bringing this up in relation to armand because i think this mindset explains some of the disconnect in dubai, beyond just the circumstances with lestat that got them there. because louis feels lobotomized to me in his cold modern penthouse where he's disconnected from his food, he's disconnected from other vampires, he doesn't work. he buys and sells artwork he appears to have only a passing interest in, he's tempered his accent. he sleeps in a bed and not a coffin, he eats at the table.

and i've been trying to wrap my head around that and how he ended up there, but i'm starting to think a lot of that is armand trying to give louis what he thinks louis wants to feel satiated. louis wants independence and nice things and obvious markers of wealth. so. have this penthouse with the most coldly, impersonally stylish decor. acquire this expensive artwork and then sell it so you can buy something more expensive. if you won't hunt, then here--dine on fine china.

i'm not saying armand holds all the money or anything, we don't know their finances. but i could see him continuously providing louis with expensive things in the hopes that will satisfy louis' desire to feel successful (and also because he has a metric fuckton to make up for and this is one way he tries), but it doesn't because what is louis doing to earn it? money makes money and it seems like louis doesn't have to do anything any more but coast, which is, as armand fears, boring. but idk if he knows how to address that because armand doesn't understand louis' perspective in the first place.

i think i love and empathize with armand so much because he's the one character on the show who feels, at his core, like he isn't good enough. i don't think this is as much a struggle for louis or lestat or claudia, but i think it is for armand. armand is pathetic. he's morally void, and he's too damn weak to grow a fucking backbone and stand by his choices without couching them in lies, because he can't accept being perceived as someone who would make those decisions. he wants affection. he craves approval.

(lmao old school a/n here--i wrote most of this before the finale and damn......i was spot on re: armand couching choices in lies lolololol)

people keep making posts about how armand seems a bit too invested in daniel's opinion of him. and obviously there's an armandiel bent to those, but i also think it's because daniel is the most objective person in the room. he isn't objective because he's tangled up in their story, too, but he's outside of the partnership. he's a journalist. he's an archivist of some version of the truth. and i think he wants daniel to see him how he wants to be seen. he didn't want daniel to think he was boring in san francisco, and he doesn't want daniel to think he's boring now decades later. he wants the external validation from someone outside of his unit to tell him he did the best he could. which obviously daniel won't do, which makes armand want it more.

there's a very good chance i'm completely wrong and talking out my ass and just a pathetic armand apologist myself, but idk. every episode makes me more curious about him. i started season 2 really disinterested in armand and lowkey put off by his presence. but the season has shifted things for me slowly but surely, and now i think armand is one of the most interesting characters on the show. and that makes me love him even more.

[aryastark-valarmorghulis]

Two reasons why I'm having a hard time connecting with the Iwtv / VC fandom and I went into a major blocking/unfollowing spree 🤦🏻‍♀️

1. Hardcore Lestat stans-apologists (psa: I'm not a Lestat hater by all means, I like and enjoy book Lestat, I love Samstat and Loustat) rejoycing because Lestat will finally be the lead and we'll discover he's this special snowlflake of a tortured hero and the narrative did him dirty so far, he isn’t a villain, he's a poor victim and the abuse towards Louis was a mutual abuse etc etc

Some stuff, I admit, is actually a lot more nuanced than this and not completely wrong per se, but it's worded in a way that makes me realise some Lestat fans don't care about Louis at all and want the show to be only about Lestat and his white manpain. Which. Um, ok, I know it's exactly like this in the books but they're not doing the books page by page (and thank heaven otherwise we'd have Blood Canticle on screen). It would be a terrible decision to sideline the black main character in favour of the white special prince etc etc not to mention nonsensical since the show has been color-conscious in its approach and very much interested in exploring racism, black queer characters and identity so far

2. VC book purists that despise the show have been enraged about many things during the last 3 years but the worst were: Armand not being a 17 y.o. redhead and Daniel being old. They're now saying this horrible show gaslighted us (seriously?) into believing DM would happen and this "thing" isn’t the real DM. You know, the one where Armand looks like a kid and Daniel is a hot 30 y.o.

Which. Again, yes, it's in the books and I love book DM (best thing AR ever wrote imho), but they're adapting the books and a lot of those scathing complaints sounds a lot like racism & ageism to me

Sorry. I'm done, got it off my chest, now I'm free 🤷🏻‍♀️

[oddstone]

I have SO MICH to say to scream about iwtv that I actually will lose my momentum to do any of my remaining work for the semester. SO all I will say is that I was VERY HAPPY to see one of my favs Ben Daniel’s on the show truly put the ICK in Francis/ Santiago. I will be disparage that character to DUST. but I’m just a Ben girly. Anyway….. y’all are so lucky I don’t do fandom shit anymore. But Lestat apologists… EVERYTHING U TOUCH GON TURN TO ASH HOE! Armand… u sad as bitch… u try hard blubber fish. Assad truly my beautiful brown prince roses for u for bringing complicated yet bitch ass pussy footing neurotic anxiety ridden. cowardice back to the screen.

LOUIS DE POINTE DU LAC. The way I wanted to slap this character out of existence… the way the chancla was FORMING IN MY HAND AT THE END OF rp. 8. And no I haven’t read the books so let me get this off my chest. to give him some room I GET that this possibly a scene of closure that he needed to be is truly done with Lestat. I get having moments of emotional closure with a person you loved despite their abuse. I can put my nuance hat on. And I GET IT, trying to be there for an ex at their lowest point even if it’s not a sound choice, I GET IT.

But YOU KNOW THE TRUTH. And that still shouldn’t change the fact that YOU GIVING LESTAT AN INCH IS GIVING HIM 8 THOUSAND MILES. . And s3 will probably clear up this scene and we’re getting Lestat pov. But it can’t be denied that initial feeing of that end scene MEANS U LEARNED NOTHING AT ALL. If u get back with this white devil.

I literally don’t give a fuck if Louis recollection is skewed, that literally is what happens when you spend a life with a toxic abusive controlling narcissistic partner. And u happen to be co-dependent. Like it makes sense that Louis memories aren’t all the way there, even when it makes him look favourable. Outside the supernatural aspect that is a response the brain does when recollecting trauma.

Anyway, I feel this way because literally everything Claudia has told him has plead with him meant NOTHING. And yeah yeah I know there is that angle of analysis that, that is the point and how Louis himself is toxic.

But some of y’all act as if it makes it okay ! And I swear in s3 if I hear/see shit about mutual abuse I will literally duplex u into a volcano.

My baby Claudia. Saying that you deserved more is an understatement and seemingly the wrong statement. You didn’t just deserve more u deserved everything. I made peace when it came to me analytically and allegorically that u are literally the inner child which we all stifle that we all push away. Claudia was truly the agony of unfulfilled potential. And she deserved to be loved. And she was loved and that is all I can ask for.

Man I was in SHAMBLES.

Anyway lol can’t wait for s3,

[danlous]

people on the reddit sub for iwtv are a special kind of breed. there is such an interesting discussion to be had about louis' abuse and neglect toward claudia, but no. that's not what these people mean. that whole sub is a cesspool of "lestat is so cute and innocent and is actually the one suffering abuse". anne rice lives on in that sub and those fans and i hate that that's the part of fandom the show caters to with promo and early screen invites. (there were threads on there wanting to see assad get lynched ffs. the post dressed at up as armand but used assad's name and in the comments they straight up said people like assad should not be on this show and need to be removed. that thread was up for a long time, but the second you mention racism in the fandom, the thread gets locked within a minute)

It definitely has some of the most stupid, racist and abuse apologist shit i've seen in fandom. Another recent example that made me baffled how can anyone can willingly say something like in public was one user making a post how Claudia hating that she doesn't age doesn't make any sense since she should be happy that she'll always be a 'sexy teen'. At least with that post other users were calling it out for being gross and weird but many other shitty posts and comments get upvoted like that 'louis is abusive to lestat and armand' one earlier. There are 37k members in that sub so there are lots of different users of course but i def feel it has proportionally more white book fans compared to other sites, and also people lacking basic knowledge of things like dynamics of abuse and racism that are pretty essential for understanding the show

[armandcock]

sorry i love your blog and everything but i think you’re falling into the common fandom pitfall of turning louis into a saint that he textually is not. even assad acknowledges that the arun/maitre dynamic louis and armand engage in is fucked up. doesn’t mean you can’t like it of course but it still is a fucked up part of their relationship that louis starts. i don’t want to sound like i’m an armand apologist because even though i’m an armand fan first and foremost, he has done terrible things to louis and i won’t deny that but acting like louis was nothing but good to armand is just incorrect. and building on that, thinking daniel would be better to armand than louis is not white saviorism, it’s fact. and it doesn’t even necessarily have to be about louis specifically either. daniel treats armand better than marius, lestat, and louis so i don’t like how people can’t say that without being jumped with accusations of playing into racial stereotypes and demonizing louis. anyway, i just think that since you are white you might be overcorrecting out of fear and it’s understandable but you should still be mindful of what you say. also anyone can be trans and it shouldn’t be moralized at all. preference is another thing but basically saying armand can’t be transfem because he’s too evil is wild.

no offense but can you just leave me alone or dm me if you have any actual concerns. rather than just putting words in my mouth or (damn near willfully) misunderstanding what im saying.

[appendectomy]

i have this very very specific vision of show marius in my head, which i may adjust as i continue to read the books. and i am trying to temper my expectations so im not dissapointed when the writers inevitably can't read my mind lol. but basically

i want marius to be a middle aged white guy. i want him to be charming, handsome, generous. i want him to have moments of genuine tenderness with armand. i want the audience to be lulled into a false sense of security with him, just like armand was. i want the audience to understand why armand feels such attachment to him, and the safety he thought he had found in marius. and i specifically want him to be cast as a white guy because i think that dynamic would specifically inform a lot of show armand's current identity issues especially in regards to his ethnic identity (or lack thereof). but at the same time, i want the show to be unapologetic in their depiction and damnation of his abuse. i want his charisma AND his abuse to exist hand in hand. i know inevitably this will breed marius apologists but i think this would be such a good opportunity to continue the abuse commentary and racial commentary the show has already engaged in regardless. if the show does it right, most people won't think that way and will instead come away questioning their own biases.

i think because of the show's explicit pivot of armand from a very young white boy to a young indian man, an avenue has opened up which explicitly allows for marius' abuse to become an allegory for European colonial violence. like it would already serve as a commentary on interpersonal abuse anyway, but engaging with the racial dynamic could add another interesting layer to it all. this would help explore armand as a character too. i understand that in the books, anne rice kind of portrayed marius as this tortured, largely sympathetic character who was emblematic of white Roman society, something anne rice saw as romantic and noble. and so i think by engaging with orientalist theory when writing armand and marius' dynamic the writers could easily interrogate this textual depiction of whiteness, which is something they've already shown they're interested in doing with seasons 1 and 2. by leaning in to and not apologising for his abusiveness they could esentially say yeah anne rice thought this was ok but WE DON'T! she excused his abuse by making him 'likeable' but we're going to show you that's not how it works!

i think by making marius appear both charming AND abusive, not only are you deconstructing stereotypical depictions of abusers as one-dimensional cartoon villains, but you're also creating an allegory out of the interpersonal abuse between marius and armand; marius genuinely thinks he is good for armand, saving armand, and other people think that too because he comes across likeable, just like those who enact orientalist colonial violence believe they are acting in the best interests of those they are colonising due to the delusion of a 'civilising mission.' i think this cognitive dissonance being written into marius on the show could easily symbolise the cognitive dissonance that is at the heart of a lot of orientalist fantasy.

i think characterising marius as someone who engages with orientalist fantasy, someone who views himself as a saviour, a civiliser, an appreciator of asian cultures, while he enacts such horrific violence on armand also already fits quite well with what we already know of show armand's backstory. he was 'rescued' by marius from a brothel and abused by him while still a child. he believed marius to be his merciful saviour, even hundreds of years later. he has a severe disconnect from his ethnic identity, doesnt even remember for sure if the name he had as a child was the name his indian parents gave him. this not only paints the picture of a complex abuse victim, but also could be used to symbolise the wider material and psychologically consequences of colonial violence on a person.

I'm gonna need the entire iwtv writers room to read orientalism by edward said before they start writing armand and marius' show dynamic Tbh

[licncourt]

What's your opinion on the iwtv movie?

I really like the 1994 movie! It's visually stunning, absolutely immaculate costume and set design and quite faithful to the book aside from a few changes that makes sense for the sake of the transition from book to film. The practical effects are so much fun and even the CGI is very well-applied.

It's not a perfect movie, there are some cut scenes I think should've stayed from the book and from the original script, plus the fact that it's pretty clear the story has been a bit straightwashed with things like giving Louis a dead wife and child instead of a brother and cutting the Only One Coffin scene. It was the 90s though, and it's honestly very impressive how much they managed to get onscreen, so props for that. It can't have been easy to get even what they did into a big Hollywood movie with A-list actors.

As far as standout elements, the casting of Kirsten Dunst in particular was absolutely perfect, she's incredible as Claudia, truly the standout performance in my opinion. Tom Cruise was fantastic too and that's still wild almost thirty years later. I hate to give the scientologist credit, but he did his homework and really put his whole pussy into playing Lestat. He deserves the praise he gets for sure.

Brad Pitt...okay listen. I am a Brad Pitt Louis apologist. I think if you look at his performance as a reflection of Louis' dissociation and apathy during that time in his life, it reads quite well. I just wish there were more emotional peaks and valleys, even just a few, to offset and highlight that monotone approach and make it feel like a character choice rather than BP sulking (which is what it was). However, anyone who's followed me for any length of time knows how I feel about the sewer scene. That was the serve of the century and I was so glad Jacob Anderson resurrected that expression in the show. That's a little baby your honor.

My main gripe with the movie is how flattened Louis' character was. He's presented as a direct opposite to Lestat, the stick in the mud who simply objects to feeding on humans because it's wrong to kill, no more and no less. I really missed the hypocrisy and contradiction that makes Louis LOUIS. We only get it in the (brilliant) prostitute scene and that's a shame.

I also wish they would've kept Louis' religious trauma as a focal point of the story rather than a single mention with Armand. It's so integral to his character that its absence is really noticeable. Still, I understand that it's a movie and there's only so much depth you can include. I think it could've been done a bit better in that regard though.

The highest praise I can give the movie is that they actually added a few things I wish were in the book:

Louis eating some lady's poodles

GRAPE THROWING

Lestat's retort where he yells "why should I know these things? Do you know them?" I think it really hits at the heart of Lestat's pain regarding his turning and provides a great moment of vulnerability

Claudia's line "why do you say such things?" It doesn't fully change the scene, but it drives home the father-daughter relationship in a really poignant way.

Generally speaking, I think it's a great, if inevitably imperfect, movie and definitely one of my favorites. I always use it as an entry point to get people to read the book and it's never failed me.

[murfpersonalblog]

A Response to the Lestat Simps (Interview With The Vampire) - Said By Ty

Y’all Lestans need to STAY MAD! 😂🤣 Once again, I agree with everything Ty said. These nuggets in particular are absolute gold.

So let's address the books. First, stop--IDGAF about what's in the books, it doesn't matter, stop bringing them up, it's redundant. From what I've seen, a lot of the Lestat sympathizers seem to think that the books should be some sort of prerequisite or mandatory reading in order to consume the show . That's stupid. I haven't read the books, but I'm pretty sure that Claudia wasn't 14 in the books! I'm definitely sure that Louis wasn't BLACK in the books! And I'm D@MN SURE that Lestat didn't drop Louis from 100+ feet in the air in the books! So if those things aren't even in the books, what sense does it make to constantly bring up the books, when we're talking about the actions in the show?! (1:58 - 2:38)

And I’ve seen the same Lestans throwing SO MUCH shade at Ty on Tumblr, who’ve also outright said that they KNOW Rolin’s NOT doing the Lestat from the books! This is NOT their precious uwu blorbo, yet they go BALLISTIC when show-onlies say AMC!Lestat’s a p.o.s!? Lestans stay mad cuz of 1x5, and CONSTANTLY complain that they wish the last half of Ep5 never happened, cuz it changes Lestat’s character oh he would never do such a thing~! Even though IN THE BOOKS he’s still a p.o.s. abusive rapist cheater liar pedo etc, so WTF? I’m a book reader, and I’ve seen the movies, so I DO treat them as prerequisites for my own approach to AMC’s adaptation, and I DO recommend that everyone have that extra context, but I’d never say anyone is REQUIRED to read the books or watch the movie in order to have valid takes on the show--even if those are takes I don’t agree with. Y’all Lestans are wild istg, and attacking Ty just for speaking his mind proves how out of pocket y’all are--esp. cuz he’s not the first or last, y’all did the exact same thing to FrankFreezy & Olurinatti etc.

Many people in the comments kept bringing up the books or telling me that I don't understand Gothic media and there are no good guys and bad guys and everyone's the villain and blah blah blah. Please shut up. Y'all use that as a CRUTCH, to turn your brains off and avoid analyzing bad behavior. Just because a show is gothic and meant to show horrendous sh*t doesn't mean I have to like or absolve a character OF that horrendous sh*t, and I can STILL enjoy the show that HAS that horrendous sh*t! I know--shocker! (0:57 -1:32) ....Now onto this idea that consuming Gothic media somehow means I shouldn't acknowledge or talk about a character's sh*tty behavior...I can enjoy...a dark show that's meant to be Gothic & dark and still feel my feelings towards certain characters; especially when that character is a driving force behind the narrative. And if feelings are supposed to be taken out of it, why is it okay for YOU to love Lestat, but ME hating him is a problem???? This is especially stupid, because the people saying things like this are the same people who hate Armand--and not in the love to hate kind of way--they just HATE him, and that's fine, but God forbid someone hate Lestat; then suddenly oh it's a Gothic show blah blah blah (5:53 - 6:34)

Just say y’all like Lestat cuz he’s cute~! 😂 You just wanna self-insert all your sexual fantasies into the character you’re most sexually attracted to, and not have to think about or be reminded of his problematic actions, and all the critics out here calling Lestat out are ruining your fun and drying your juices. THAT’S FINE! Just say that, and leave the people who WANT to analyze the show more seriously ALONE.

And then there are those of you who also say that I'm an Armand sympathizer or apologist because I believe his actions are more justified than Lestat’s--which many of you have misrepresented as me implying anything he did was good. NO. I just believe that he's more justified in comparison to Lestat, and I stand on that until further notice, and you can stay mad about it! (1:37- 1:58)

PREACH! Even in the books, Armand HAD A POINT! Like I’ve always said about him: He does wrong things for the right reasons--the road to Hell is paved with good intentions! He’s a religious fanatic cult/gang leader who’s been brainwashed into believing those garbage Great Laws, and is trying to maintain some sense of order, whenever Lestat & his fledglings come bringing nothing but chaos to his doorstep. Is he effed up for doing the things he does? Absolutely. But LESTAT is the one I blame more, for not warning his family about Armand & the coven--not back in NOLA, and not back in Paris. 

So apparently Armand forced Lestat to be part of that Trial in the books or whatever--I don't know, I haven't read the books.... You're so desperate to save face on Lestat's behalf, that you're revealing sh*t that the show hasn't even revealed yet. If you are not able to justify Lestat's actions within the realm OF THE SHOW, with what we know so far, shut up!!! Now if it turns out to be true, I have have no problem acknowledging that, and I can give Lestat grace in that specific instance. However, I'm still not going to FORGET about HOW HE TREATED LOUIS AND CLAUDIA--he was still abusive, I'm not absolving him of that, and I said as much in my video when I said no matter what he went through, what he did to them will NEVER be justified! (4:44 - 5:53) ... Maybe this is news to you guys, but you CAN understand a character, and why they do the things they do, without absolving them of the sh*tty things that they do. I can understand Lestat and why he behaves the way he does, and I'm sure Season 3 will provide even greater understanding, and I'm excited for that. But that doesn't mean everything he does suddenly becomes justified or is to be dismissed; that's not how that works. (12:38 - 13:04)

This is the god’s honest truth. IDGAF about Lestat’s sob story in TVL & S3. What I want to see is Les realize that despite the trauma he went through in the past, he’s done nothing but project his issues & hangups onto Louis & Claudia in the present, and that they didn’t deserve being thrust into his cycle of generational trauma just cuz Les didn’t know how TF to properly process his abandonment issues from depressed!Gabrielle ignoring him all his life to read books (#Louis); the abusive!Marquis not letting Les leave home to get an education or be an actor (”come play chess with your father”) (#Claudia); suicidal!Magnus raping him into vampiricism then abandoning/orphaning him without ever teaching him how to survive on his own (#Marquis/Gabrielle); depressed!insane!Nicki deliberately spiting Les and wanting him to suffer like he was suffering (”I hoped we would fail in Paris!”) (#Louis); know-it-all!/holier-than-thou!Marius abandoning Les for waking Akasha after Les had left everything behind & wandered around for so long looking for him & looking for answers Marius GAVE HIM, then reneged on when he got jealous Akasha liked him more (#Marquis/Louis).

I was also very clear on why I don't think [Armand] is worse. Yes he orchestrated the Trial, yes he did, he's sh*tty, I agree. But LESTAT IS CLAUDIA’S DAD. He participated! That is worse to me, and you're not going to convince me otherwise, until Season 3 gives me a reason to believe otherwise.... And I really don't understand why y'all are so intent to focus more on the fact that Armand lied for 70+ years, as opposed to Lestat helping getting his daughter killed. That sh*t actually confounds me. Oh, Armand erased Louis’ memories and lied about directing the Trial for 77 years omg he's clearly the villain~! Lestat dropped Louis from the sky just because Louis considered leaving with Claudia! And then later on he got Claudia killed! Like, hello?! At least with Armand we already know that he had it in him to kill Louis; he contemplated doing it when Louis didn't join the coven [in 2x3], so you expect me to suddenly clutch my pearls because he was prepared to let Louis die AGAIN? NO! ...Is he sh*tty? YES. Is he worse than Lestat? NO, not to me! He was NOT attached to Louis and Claudia like Lestat was. Two decades [Lestat] lived with them; two decades of living under the same roof, and he's their Maker, apparently sharing the Vampire Bond [with Claudia], and apparently he loved Claudia! But you expect me to be more mad at Armand...this random dude that they ran into and spent some time with for a few years, over the man who created them had a bond with them lived with them for two decades and then abused the sh*t out of them and then gets one of them killed! But he loves them~!... And I know a lot of you will stick to the idea that it's not about assigning blame and figuring out who's worse than who--f**k that! I have eyes and I know what I saw, and what I saw I did not like. (9:59 - 12:24)

ISTG I feel so vindicated and RELIEVED that there are Real Ones in this wretched fandom who actually have a effing spine, who aren’t afraid to speak their minds and call heinous ish out how they see it, and DGAF if the fandom gets mad & talks crap--SO BE IT. TALK CRAP, and look like simp apologists while you do it! 😂🤣 Go cry on Twitter or Reddit or Discord or wherever TF you want, but you’re not shutting up any of us viewers who are looking at this show with our eyes open and calling a spade a spade. I said it 1000x: LESTAT IS CLAUDIA’S BLOOD FATHER. Not Armand, not Santiago, not Louis. LESTAT. 🙄😒 IDGAF how cute he is: she’s DEAD, and he needs his lashings for it.

Oh, and don't even get me started on the comments that kept on saying: Well you can't look at it from a human lens~! Vampires aren't moral, we shouldn't put human morality on them~! ...I happen to think that it's reductive to make that statement, as if vampires are thoughtless wild things who are just INCAPABLE of having ANY type of morality. Louis, for example, CANONICALLY ON THE SHOW has not killed anyone since the year 2000.... This point proves that they ARE capable of having some type of personal morality, and DEFINITELY when it comes to them dealing with EACH OTHER. I CAN hold them accountable for the sh*t that they do! They experience remorse, they experience empathy, they are intelligent beings who DO know right from wrong to some degree. When it comes to each other...morality is why Lestat is apologetic to Louis! Morality is why Louis comes back crawling to Lestat expressing his own regrets for how he treated Lestat, even though in my personal opinion Louis was completely justified in his treatment of Lestat (but that's besides the point)! And it's how they're able to understand that what Bruce did to Claudia was WRONG! If they were just all-round immoral creatures, we wouldn't have the show, or at least not an interesting one! So yes they are fully capable of having morals and acting within those morals. Yes are they deep and complex and it's not black and white when it comes to how they interact and what they've been through...but I'm still able and IN MY RIGHT to analyze their behaviors and how they treat each other and still deem it wrong. They themselves do it! Why am I as a viewer burdened with the idea that I shouldn't be judging them for their horrible actions, when they themselves are!? That doesn't compute; try again (13:04 - 15:19).

AR’s vampires ARE still inherently human; that’s the whole point. She DIDN’T want to portray vampires as stock monsters with no souls or concept of morality. And that’s also why I disagree with what Sam Reid said about not seeing one vampire as good or another as bad. I can TOTALLY see some of these vampires as good or bad, wtf--Santiago & Bruce are inherently BAD. Sure, Armand & Lestat are more COMPLEX than they are, but that doesn’t mean they can’t EVER be seen as bad either! But y’all Louis-antis & Claudia-antis talk about how they’re p.o.s. people too! So don’t be effing hypocrites saying OTOH vampires don’t apply to human morality, BOTOH saying omg Louis’ the worst vampire on the whole show he’s so terrible to my blorbo Lestat/Armand~! Yes, there’s a difference b/t antagonists & villains, but y’all make me rotfl when you try to force Louis & Claudia of all people into the villain role, while saying with your whole chest that villains don’t exist in TVC/IWTV cuz that’s not the point and you don’t understand Gothic horror/romance as a genre~! STFU.

I don't have to agree with Anne Rice or the showrunners or the actors. My opinion is my opinion; stop trying to enforce this idea that because these people see it differently that we should all see it that way too. Once you put art out there, it is no longer yours; it is up for the audience to interpret! INTENT DOES NOT NEGATE IMPACT. This is a fundamental concept when it comes to writing for an audience: it doesn't matter what your intention was! If the audience sees it a different way, then you have to live with that!... So bottom line: the book and the show are two completely different entities, and they should be consumed as such. So stop trying to use the books to justify actions on the show; you look silly. (3:27 - 4:34)

PERIOD. 💯

[hekateinhell]

Marius: cheaped out on paint when he was commissioned to do a very expensive portrait and it SHOWED.

VC characters, but they get cancelled for random reasons:

Lestat: Killed 8 (eight) endangered animals and wore them in a cape

Louis: He kicked a dog once. Also killed several animals. 

Mojo: #1 Lestat apologist.

Feel free to add more.

[emtmercy]

the ep 5 loustat scenes didnt bother me much and i never thought roland jones was aiming for an earth style human abusive relationship although i get why people were concerned about that. fiction just does work with different rules than real life because characters can act in ways that are inconsistent with real life implications especially once everyones a serial killer vampire

i really felt that based on everything in the show and his quote of "this is the interview [holds up book one] and this is the show [holds up the entire VC series]" that they were attempting to achieve and expand on the experience of reading the series where book one has you being like wow lestat is the devil and then the rest of the books written years later during anne rice's lestat stan period the canon is changed to reveal that lestat is still an evil crazy vampire but not on the irredeemable one note villain level that louis wants to portray for his own emotional security + to achieve whatever he feels he needs to with daniel

but i didnt expect to have them drop the hammer with the reveal so hard in the finale it was so good

roland jones saying this version of events has likely been fed to him by armand asdkjasdklasdjkasd

obviously totally understandable to be upset with ep 5 regardless because even though they were trying to just do a Fucked Up Vampires Being Fucked Up (as told through the warped lens of a man telling a story with an agenda) it is definitely questionable to do that POV game with violence between partners because of the way the real world we exist in is

this post is so long but great episode and great win for lestat apologist sam reid

sad they didnt get to dump him in the swamp but you gotta do what you gotta do lmao