#or c) claudia with louis

[aspiringhexgirl]

me when I bet on losing dogs when I know they're losing and I pay for my place by the ring where I'll be looking in their eyes when they're down

[winepresswrath]

THANK YOU for explaining the Louis/Armand fight with such clarity. Like obviously Armand has the ultimate power over the relationships here and the way he behaves in this episode is world class terrible, we can all see that, but I feel like I've been going crazy when people are softening Louis's words as light banter while Armand responding somewhat in kind is framed as malicious suicide baiting.

It's not my take but I would understand if people were approaching this as "Armand sucks so bad and technically can leave whenever so I give 0 fucks what Louis does or says to him," but "Louis was just being mean" doesn't track for me. He is at this point in his life using regularly enough that Armand's first response when he gets vicious is a bitter "here comes the drugs." He's used to this. Addiction is a complicated and terrible disease but Louis is Armand's partner, for whatever reason, apparently (big caveat) of his own volition and he responds to Armand being upset about his cycle of risky drug use and insincere apologies with a "you're boring and smothering" speech before turning on a dime to "cringe of you to be a victimized. it's given you a real victim mentality" when Armand says he's boring too. It's legitimately reprehensible behaviour! And that's fine. I will continue making heart eyes at him whenever he appears on screen undeterred.

[ripclaudia]

i do have a couple issues with the episode but i feel like they might just be about me not understanding

[vole-mon-amour]

Some fans: Louis sees Claudia only as a daughter.

Louis in the book:

If you see this as pure parenting, I think you better block me and keep scrolling. I am so not looking for a debate on this, lol.

[aranostra]

some stuff i'm not including from iwtv s2

i don't like how the hurricane conversation went down. i don't see why louis would forgive lestat because he saved him when he didn't bother to save claudia. he will talk to him again (and eventually armand too), but i would rather it go differently.

lestat's rewrite of the big fight. louis tried to defend himself, of course, and probably said some stuff, but... what lestat described isn't in character for louis.

claudia and madeleine being romantic. i feel uncomfortable shipping claudia in general, but in particular i found madeleine's reaction to finding out claudia wasn't a child super weird, like she already had it in mind when she still thought claudia was 14.

[blueiight]

i think theres sum profound bout the evolution of louis social identity from creole to black , how the historical times theyre in corresponds to a loss of humanity on a literal& social level but a lot of fans dont rly catch it. i feel like anderson do when he talk bout race? cuz its not only louis being black, but also the expansion of the social construct of black in new orleans during jim crow. louis inciting the riot and righteously killing the alderman, while being hopelessly in love w/ a white man, w/o the wider rammifications that would have for him& all others like him… idk im thinking sum bout the lines of power on the margins , the loss of all that & shit smarter ppl than me can rly get into🤷🏾‍♀️

[seyrito]

it's an old song, it's a sad song

don't even joke lad

[thenightling]

WTF Armand fans?!?

I just found out there are Vampire Armand fans who insist Armand cannot have altered Louis's memories in the show because "book Armand is all about consent." ...Since when?!??!?? A. In the Interview with the vampire novel he admitted to Louis that he pushed him (psychically) to make Madeine into a vampire, knowing Louis would not have otherwise. Louis makes him promise to never do something like that to him again. B. In The Vampire Lestat novel there is a scene of Armand trying to forcibly drink Lestat's blood and Lestat beats the sh-t out of him for it. C. In The Vampire Armand novel, Armand tells David Talbot (repeatedly) that he wants to "Blood rape" him. (Drink his blood against his will). D. In The Vampire Armand novel, Armand describes a torturous experiment in which he sewed Claudia's head onto an adult body before putting her head back on her original body and leaving her and Madeleine to burn in the sun. This is not really possible with the continuity of the Interview with the vampire novel since it was so close to dawn when Claudia and Madeleine were condemned but if we take it as fact Armand admits to this and there was no consent required. E. In The Vampire Armand novel Armand admits to having a torture chamber and using it. F. Back to Queen of the damned (novel) he stalked Daniel Malloy for a long time and it was not, originally, consensual.

This isn't something that's up for interpretation, kiddies. Armand NOT being about consent is a major character trait for him. How the Hell did you take Monsieur Psychopath and headcanon that he's all about consent?!? Don't pretend you read the books in front of someone who was obsessed with them in the 90s. I still have most of them memorized. Now, it's also very likely the show might have it that Armand did NOT play with Louis's memories but if you're going to try to use the literary Armand as proof of this... honey, you need to revisit those novels without "Oooh, pretty seventeen-year-old, Isn't he cwoot!??" in mind.

[platoapproved]

Okay so I'm looking back on season 2 and having some Thoughts about Dreamstat.

In 2x01 Louis says "he came by invitation," which is be backed up by how he consciously dismisses Dreamstat in 2x04. But in my opinion, it all gets way messier when - in 2x07, deeply shaken by talking about the trial - Louis hallucinates Lestat in the Dubai penthouse. It's SUCH a jarring moment; Louis' unreliability is at the forefront of the audience's mind since he has just admitted his version of Claudia's turning from 1x04 was inaccurate. Then the audience is shown that Louis is omitting things, particularly continued hallucinations. (We also see him have further non-Lestat hallucinations in 2x08 when he is plotting his revenge).

With all that in mind, I'm inclined to think that he's way less in control of Dreamstat than he insists he is. Louis says otherwise, but this is the Unreliable Narrator Show™.

So. Why I was thinking about this in the first place...

I see lots of people bringing up Dreamstat's reactions to things, mostly in a context of being angry with Louis. And I get it! Dreamstat is mocking and cruel. But I also think it's wrong to blame Louis fully for those things? At least, to blame him in the way people seem to do.

These are not things he is choosing to think, or that he is saying aloud. They exist only within his own head. Dreamstat is all his Louis's worst instinctive reactions and snap judgments, vocalized internally (we just see and hear them as the audience).

His paranoia while being romantically pursued, an understandable response given how things went down with Lestat:

His self-loathing (always comes back to the self-loathing with Louis :c):

His frustration while having an argument with his companion situationship:

These are Louis' thoughts, yes. But they're gut responses, all emotion, without filter or reasoning.

And I just can't wrap my head around thinking less of Louis for having these responses. It's a very honest and unflinching depiction of someone whose response to trauma (both from his relationship with Lestat but also, like, his entire human life) is kneejerk resentment and pettiness that he very VERY rarely vocalizes.

Even as Dreamstat is mocking Armand's romantic overtures, Louis is continuing to have discussions with him, to ask him what he needs to be happier in their relationship. Armand wants him to come around more, he shows up to the disastrous dinner where he fights with Santiago. Armand wants to bring flowers and apologize, Louis hears him out. He is CHOOSING, in spite of the cruel automatic responses of his thoughts, to treat Armand with as much fairness and gentleness as he can.

As a side note, I really read Dreamstat's laugh in the museum scene much differently than others on here. A lot of people seem to see it as Louis mocking Armand's history of sexual abuse. But Dreamstat only scowls through all that (which is, again, not great but it is understandable, given how Lestat deployed his Magnus story to win Louis back after exploding in anger, and the whole setup for Armand talking about his past is him explaining why he is not like Lestat). Dreamstat's only real reaction comes when Armand has moved on from that part of his speech, to discussing the vampiric cycle of violence.

The line he reacts to is Armand saying "Magnus who begat Lestat, Lestat who begat Louis, on and on, and on and on." And Dreamstat... doesn't laugh? I see people describing it as a laugh. He yells 'HAH!' in the angriest, bitterest, disbelieving voice. To me this is not Louis being unimpressed or mocking Armand's trauma, it's him adamantly refusing to be included in the narrative as a part of vampire culture / as a victim. We know Louis does not like people labeling him as a victim or abused. We know he wants to opt out of all Claudia's searching for vampire culture and vampire history. To me this moment is not at all about Armand, it's about Armand implying that Louis is connected with the covens, with a larger narrative of vampirism, including a narrative about makers exploiting and harming their fledglings.

No, Louis isn't perfect, and his handling of Armand is not perfect. But I think people are way too harsh on him for this scene and just in general. He is not his worst thoughts. His actions are much, much, much, much more important. He chooses Armand. I think he chooses to be as careful with Armand as he knows how to be, given the tools at his disposal. Yes, there's a horrible gremlin (ha, see what I did there?) in the bottom of his brain that tosses up vile mean judgy nonsense, but Louis then elects to ignore all that and be as kind as possible.

[aranostra]

I am thinking about Louis being raised in a family that teases each other and doesn't take things too personally most of the time. A family who will laugh things off pretty easily. A family that points out flaws in each other openly, but in a way that comes across as joking.

Yes, things get serious and even cruel (especially from maman), but the siblings in particular bond with each other by joking about the difficult stuff.

[retiredkat]

Great interview with Eric Bogosian

Vulture article

Eric Bogosian Would Get Naked for Interview With the Vampire 10:31 A.M.

Daniel Molloy is a fictional two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, bullshitometer, and sass-kitten, an aging journalist holding his own among monsters while conducting the titular Q&A at the heart of Interview With the Vampire. With clear-eyed wit and a dash of human vulnerability, Eric Bogosian gives Molloy a distinctly Anthony Bourdain–ish edge infused with notes of his own acerbic Talk Radio character Barry Champlain. In Anne Rice’s book and the movie that followed, Daniel Molloy is a cub reporter trembling over his tape deck. But in Rolin Jones’s brilliant AMC adaptation, which just wrapped up its second season, this isn’t Molloy’s first twirl around the vampire hoedown. The conversation takes place 50 years after that first interview ended in blood, gore, and sexual frustration (Luke Brandon Field plays the younger Molloy in flashbacks, including this season’s standout episode five). Now Molloy’s seen it all, has a loaded past with these vamps, and when he trembles, it’s from Parkinson’s, rarely nerves. Molloy’s the audience surrogate, cutting through Louis (Jacob Anderson) and Armand’s (Assad Zaman) competing narratives while ultimately shipping Loustat just like the rest of us.

This delicate dynamic got slammed into a concrete wall and lit on fire (complimentary) in the final minutes of the season-two finale, when Molloy was revealed to have been turned into a vampire by Armand, breaking the ancient vampire’s centuries-long incel streak. And boy, is it a reveal, with a cocky Molloy, riding high on his best-selling book, whipping off his sunglasses at night to reveal color-changing eyes while doing mental walkie-talkie with Louis. He’s even got a sick leather jacket to really hammer home that he’s a cool bad-boy vampire now. It’s an incredibly fun beat to leave this character on and opens up a world of season-three possibilities for Bogosian as a performer who, at 71, has always wanted to play a vampire.

Do you know how weird it is to be hitting record on my MacBook right now to interview you about playing a character who’s always hitting record on his MacBook to interview people?

It’s all weird to me. I’m from another century, so all these things are new to me.

This is suspiciously sounding more and more like an interview with a vampire by the minute! Which makes sense, considering where we last saw Daniel in the finale.

Since we have multiple narratives and jump around in time already, I don’t know where things are going. Personally, I’d love to see more of young Daniel, Luke Brandon Field. I think he’s terrific. I’d love to see more Claudia. I wonder whether vampires can time travel. I think they can move around in time. I’m not sure how much Anne Rice you’ve read, but Merrick can actually bring people back from the dead, so you never know.

What was your relationship to the books when you signed on to this show?

In the mid-’70s, when Interview With the Vampire came out, I was 20-something and reading that stuff and I loved it. Then I got distracted by life. When we started doing the show, I was going to read the first one again, but then I realized that the script and my character were quite different, so I thought, I better stick to the script.

However, I needed to know what happened next, so I started plowing through the books and it was amazing. The Vampire Lestat was a trip — that’s what they’ll be hitting next — and they just got trippier and trippier. I just finished the seventh, which puts all the stories together. I love Anne Rice because her imagination is completely unfettered and she plays with really deep themes in a way that’s not heavy. It’s not like you’re reading Ayn Rand; it’s more like Stephen King. She explores death in the guise of these vampires by asking, Oh yeah, you wanna be immortal? Here’s what immortal looks like.

I’ve always been a big fan of vamps. I lobbied Francis Ford Coppola to get a part in his Dracula in the ’90s. I guess I wasn’t a big star, so I couldn’t get a part in it, but he was nice about it and invited me to set. I’ve told this story in other interviews, but my wife was directing a play in Chicago, which, totally by coincidence, was written by one of our first-year writers. On the plane there, I was thinking about life, thinking, I’ve done so many things. What’s left? And I thought, Man, I still really want to play a vampire. And when I landed, I got a phone call: “Do you want to be on Interview With the Vampire?” At the time, it wasn’t like, “You’re going to be a vampire,” but I figured vampire-adjacent was good enough. And of course, it evolved, and as I got on set, Assad was explaining all of these things that were going to happen with my character. Sometimes I didn’t even want to hear about it because we never know what’s going to happen. There have been slight detours off the main story, particularly with my character.

What were those things you didn’t want to hear about your character that Assad was talking about?

I become, you know, under his spell in later stories, and there’s a whole relationship that goes on between us. I’m not entirely clear at this point how that’s going to shake out or if it’s going to shake out. I didn’t necessarily want to go waltzing into something where they were making me do anything weird or awkward or embarrassing to no particular end. I’ve done nudity and stuff like that a long time ago, and at 71, I’m not really big on getting naked and sexy onscreen.

However, having been around the genius of Rolin Jones for two years, whatever he wants to do, I’ll do it. When you’re around a master like this, it becomes a process of discovery. When I’m learning my lines it’s like, Oh, this is 3-D chess. There’s a lot going on here that I didn’t see the first time I read it. When I first got this job, I thought I was just going to be doing bookends every episode, like, “So, tell me the story,” and then it would be vampires the whole time, and at the end I’d be like, “Hmmm!” And then, “stay tuned for the next episode!” But Rolin had this idea from the beginning and it went deeper and deeper until it was insane by the end of the second season.

I would prefer not to be playing cliché. Sometimes I’m playing something that feels like a lot of other things I’ve done. Even in the service of a show that is terrific, like Succession or Billions, the things I’m doing on those shows are not things I’ve never done before. As a friend of mine said when I was doing Under Siege 2 with Steven Seagal 1,000 years ago, “They just want you to do that Eric thing you do.” My stage stuff is about being very big and very loud, and a lot of the stuff I do on-camera is like in Uncut Gems, being very angry and very broad. But this thing, particularly in the fifth episode, and going into the end — I have to go places that I’ve never gone as an actor before. The subtlety of episode five, where I am brought to tears, that’s new stuff for me, and I was really happy to do it. Not only working with Rolin and the directors but with everybody. The writers bring a lot of sensitivity, a lot of nuance to every scene.

I need to ask if you’ve seen this: Someone from the writers’ room tweeted a picture of a note card that was on the wall for episode five and it just says, “MOLLOY ASKS ABOUT 1973: DID WE FUCK?”

I love that beat. As much as I’m known for my verbosity, I love reaction stuff, too. Jacob and I are very in sync, and we’ve developed a good relationship. He’s not holding back, he’s not being cagey, and that allows you to trust the other person a lot. You’d be amazed how some actors … are actually not good actors. They’re thinking about what they look like and all this crap. Jacob can’t be thinking about what he looks like because sometimes he looks really nasty. He’s letting the emotions build out of him. And yet he’s always very adept at sculpting what he’s doing. It’s a great company. I never work with Sam, I just see him all the time on set, but that scene in the courtroom, and the scene in New Orleans … where’s that shit coming from? The emotion is wild.

You all have incredible chemistry with each other, too. Knowing where your character might go with Armand, or what other buried history may or may not also be between them, how do you play that dynamic?

In scripted narratives, you’ve just got to play what the script is doing and let the audience try to figure out the rest of it. On Succession, I worked with Sarah Snook, and her character was never clear until the end. They were making it very hard to figure out what she was thinking. And I don’t know that she always knew herself what she was thinking. She was playing the script.

There are a lot of ways to look at it, and ask, What’s really going on here? Much of it is the audience putting it together. They hear the lines, they see my face, and an older actor’s face kind of has a narrative built into it. All of it gets put together, and what you don’t know becomes fodder for your imagination.

And this audience has quite the imagination.

I’ve never been through this experience before, exploring where the audience is at. I’m reading a lot of the blogs, and they make a science out of it. Rolin gives them all they can eat in terms of details and Easter eggs that are blended into the story. I think like 30 percent of our audience is really familiar with the books, so they’re constantly checking back and forth between Anne Rice’s story and ours. So far, Rolin’s been scoring pretty well in terms of being consistent with the original material.

But again, Daniel is a whole different ball of wax. The Armand thing is interesting, because it goes into all kinds of fascinating realms far away and weird. I had to get out history books and start reading about ancient Kyiv.

The fans aren’t even just pulling from the books; I’ve seen some draw comparisons from your work like Sex, Drugs, Rock & Roll. They’re finding all these crazy parallels.

That I haven’t seen. The character in this show and me in real life have a lot of parallels. Just imagine young Daniel in the show, that was my life. The funny thing is when I used to write and perform these monologues, in my mind they didn’t have anything to do with me. And then last year, Andre Royo, who played Bubs on The Wire, did one of my shows, Drinking in America, onstage. This was the first time that I’ve watched my own solo show, and he did a great job. I started to understand the biographical aspects of these monologues. It isn’t until afterward that I can look at it and go, Oh right, this is about that. Rolin told me that they were always thinking of me for this role. He didn’t know me, so this was coming out of his enthusiasm for a movie I did 700 years ago, Talk Radio with Oliver Stone. That was based on a play I wrote for myself. What I write about has to do with a certain kind of narcissistic personality, which seems to be the theme of this TV show — they’re all narcissists in one way or another.

I’m fascinated by my character. In episode five, when he’s in San Francisco, he’s kind of a loser. That’s what Armand says: “You might as well die right now. Where’s your life going?” And yet Daniel has two Pulitzer Prizes by the time he’s an older guy. What is that about? I would almost not believe it except that it happened to me. I was leading a really dissolute life in the late ’70s into the early ’80s. I didn’t win a Pulitzer, but I was nominated in 1987 and continued to be, I guess, “successful.” So it makes sense that it happens to Daniel. But you can also ask, What motivates this? It’s a way of fighting against the world or maintaining your sanity.

I think I’ll continue to play with the push-pull of this guy if I continue with the show. In San Francisco, he says, “Make me a vampire.” Later in Dubai, he says, “No, I don’t want it, because I’ll outlive my children.” He’s going back and forth. Of course, what we don’t see in the last episode is how did he become a vamp? Did he say, “Yeah, I want to do it?” Or did he get drunk with Armand one night and when he wasn’t looking, he became a vampire? I guess we’ll find out.

I’m sure it’s the subject of dozens of fan fictions already.

I’ve gotten so close with Assad. We’ve enjoyed spending a lot of time with each other. But when he gets on set, he turns into a different person. That’s some evil shit going on there. The way he ends up in that last episode, kind of smashed, he put everything into that. It’s a lot of fun. I never got into this business to do anything other than make believe and pretend. I feel more whole when I’m being somebody else than when I’m my own self, so the more deeply we can pretend when we’re making the show, the more deeply we can get into all of this, the higher I get from it. And when you’ve got guys like this who are ready to fly, I want to go flying with them.

I know you said you don’t really know what’s happening next season, but I look forward to your vampire adventures.

Rolin keeps sending me notes saying we’re gonna have an amazing time when we start shooting again. I can’t wait. It’s just that there’s a whole formal process of how this goes, and I’m waiting for my engraved invitation from the King of AMC to say “welcome back.”

[theinfinitedivides]

so glad i waited bc it has just been. blow after blow after blow scrolling through this tag the team behind this show is f*cking insane

i am not touching the IWTV tag until tomorrow bc i woke up with a headache and the feeling that a tractor drove over me so uh. no. i need to psych myself up for this one last time

[murfpersonalblog]

Gotta wake up to this anon in the tags, undoubtedly referencing/shading what I reblogged here:

Nonny, at least say it to my face if you wanna call me an internalized misogynist, just cuz I don't cosign the predominately white court of popular opinion's dogma that ONLY sees Lestat as the female-coded victim of Louis' "abuse" of the crossdressing campy Queen Mother de Lioncourt; while you reject any acknowledgement let alone honest discussion of Lestat as the patriarchal Coven Master terrorizing his fledglings/children--even in effing 2022 when he's setting Rat Catcher ablaze with the Fire Gift in Louis' honor & kicking him out in to the hurricane--another round in the stormy romance of you two.

And plot twist: I (mostly) agree with nonny about Anne Rice, and how she engages with (trans)gender through Louis--and I agree with Nalyra that there's also complexity to how AR engages with Lestat LATER--10+ years AFTER IWTV & her daughter Michelle's death.

It's not at all easy to pin down, especially when in these convos about Loustat & gender, the most integral part of their dynamic is ALWAYS EXCLUDED by Lestans: CLAUDIA. She's only babytrapped cuz, as I've said 1000 times, Lestat was hyperaware of LOUIS' emotional/behavioral resemblance TO LESTAT'S MOTHER, GABRIELLE; and Louis' "maternal instinct," that resembled ANNE'S own excitement to be a mom.

Anne Rice is NOT saying Louis (or even Lestat!) represents her as a woman (in METAPHOR, not biology, DUH) cuz he crossdresses & gallivants around twirling his hair & flicking his limp wrists--I already discussed the effect of 18th century Franco-European dandyism on an 18th-century vampire stuck in the Rococo period (X X), where clothing is just ONE aspect of how masculinity & femininity are expressed--BY MEN.

Gender is MORE than Loustat crossdressing. Like I've said: it's misognyist to assume that everyone crossdressing is female-coded, while blatantly ignoring their BEHAVIOR--just like Nalyra said:

I have screamed & hollered from the rooftops this whole time how the power dynamics between Loustat are being grossly misunderstood or outright overlooked, as everyone gets distracted by fun & c*nty Lestat. Somehow, ONLY Lestat gets to represent Mother, but LOUIS DOESN'T!? Sus! But I'M the misogynist homophobe for calling y'all RACISTS who can't acknowledge/accept a Black gay man in a suit (or cardigan) as a female-coded representation of motherhood, when the show's beat y'all over the head with it 1000 times? SUS!

Esp. when I explicitly say Louis AS Woman, Louis AS Mother--nonny, grab a dictionary and realize that I didn't say Louis IS Mother, Louis IS Woman--it's SIMILE. It's METAPHOR. It's PARALLEL. It's CODING.

It's highly problematic to reject AR's own words being "not solid" evidence (anon), or downplay it as outdated/irrelevant (Nalyra), just cuz it doesn't align with your own interpretations. That's not how proper analysis of primary sources works. It's CONTEXTUAL evidence about the processes of personal growth; just like it's contextual how AR couched her shift to Lestat in direct relation to her tryna move past her maternal depression/grief via Louis. You cannot discuss one without the other, but that's all I ever see far too many ppl do: downplaying the foundational conceptualization of these characters within the books, film, and show alike; and hiding behind accusations of homophobia & misogyny rather than honestly engaging with the characters and their behavior. You wanna talk about misogyny? How about MISOGYNOIR, and how y'all don't know EFF ALL about BLACK MOTHERHOOD, and the hypermasculinization of Black gay men, to even BEGIN to fathom everything Louis represents in contrast & relation to Massa Lestat.

Cuz there's CERTAINLY a marked lack of discussion or acknowledgement about how race factors into all of this. I see NO mention/discussion/analysis of Lestat by that anon rejecting the other side of the conversation I'm arguing against--esp. the white privilege Lestat enjoys that allows him to be far freer with explorations of gender & sexuality than black!Louis, and thus embraced by his predominately white cis female fans--who find it so effing impossible/offensive to see the ways that HIS BEHAVIOR directly contradicts the feminist ideals about agency & autonomy they allege to hold oh-so-sacred--"crushing what you cannot own."

Which only further indicates that this particular propping up of Lestat in the fandom is being done at Louis'' expense in bad faith by bad actors running to everyone's accounts on anon and obfuscating the context they're even responding to.

Claudia never lied: "It's a STONING."

[savagewildnerness]

The Score of S2E5/E12 Don't be afraid, just start the tape.

OK, Someone was asking about the repeated piano notes that recur in S2E5 so I thought I’d have a quick go through the episode.

Please bear in mind that I have not listened to the soundtrack for season 2.  In S2E1 I was so profoundly moved by the exquisite violin music in the first 15 minutes that I was totally overwhelmed and I had to watch the first part of the episode several times to take it all in and be composed enough to continue watching.  

The way the music impacted me there, hearing it for the first time alongside the drama, as intended, made me realise I absolutely do not want to listen to the score before watching the whole of S2 and so not feel the emotion from it as intended, alongside the drama the first time I watch the show!  

I’ll spoil myself by analysing every trailer to the millisecond and reading your analyses… but the music: NO.  I even regretted knowing the Come to Me reprise before it was in the show.  

And even the S1 score… I know it well, but I listen to it on CD in the car, so I’m not familiar with the track titles as I’ve never really looked at most of them…. So, that said - this will not be referencing tracks on the score.  Perhaps I’ll return to this in more depth - analysing the music more thoroughly and with reference to the score after the series is over, but for now…

Piano pedal:

The piano pedal and theme recurs 5 times in the episode, and looking at when, I realised it is all related to Louis uncovering his suicide attempt as it culminates (on the fourth occurrence) in the full theme…

I transcribed just the first bit of slow notes, which isn’t very interesting, but here it is:

Musically the theme is just 5, slow pedal C’s the first and last occurrence - bookmarking the delve into the uncovering of memory.

The second occurrence adds an Eb, suggesting it has somewhere it is starting to head towards… but is still just 5 slow pedal notes.

The third occurrence starts the theme for a fair amount the theme and the fourth occurrence is the full theme.

1 - 5 slow pedal C’s. This occurs in Dubai at this point:

Daniel: How often has Armand spared a life?

Louis: Armand could see I was partial to you

I.e. When Daniel first opens up the concept of exploring his and Louis’ memories of San Francisco, we first hear the pedal C’s

2 - 3 C’s, an Eb and a C - 5 slow notes.  This occurs in Dubai

Daniel: I want to know, for me, what happened between us

So, the first two occurrences are Daniel opening Louis up to the idea of exploring what really happened at the first interview in San Francisco.

3 - Slow pedal C’s and Eb’s into the start of a longer piano theme.  This occurs in San Francisco

This is when Louis is talking about Claudia leaving on the train and him staying behind with Lestat and then…

Daniel: And then what?

The theme starts as Louis talks about this first contemplation of suicide and continues through Daniel’s plea to be made a vampire

4 - Full theme in San Francisco

This begins after Louis and Armand’s argument; after:

Louis: I loved her (Claudia)

Armand: But she didn’t love you.  Not like he did.  Not like I have.

Louis: I know

I don’t know if this is on the season 2 soundtrack, but I’ll presume it is, and it’ll be this, full version that continues now in its full form, through Louis going into the sun.

5 - 5 slow pedal C’s in Dubai, as at the start

This occurs when Armand returns, at the end of the episode

Armand: I could see you were partial to him.  I preserve your happiness even when you don’t or can’t.

Louis and Armand: I had a hunch

Armand: Daniel might prove fruitful in later times

The other, creepy soundscape with distorted horror/electronic sounds (YUM!) happens for the first time after Louis’ suicide attempt when Daniel is mentioned and it scores all the horror elements with Daniel and Armand, where Armand is basically torturing Daniel, trying to find out what makes Daniel fascinating to Louis and Daniel is terrified he is going to die.

The first occurrence:

Louis: He’s alive?

Armand: The boy? The fascinating boy.  He’s fine.  He’s just fine.  Oh, he’s fine.  You’re fine.  We’re all fine.

It continues as Daniel recounts what he can remember - the corpse, etc. and develops as Armand seeks what makes Daniel fascinating

I didn’t really delve into this part, but - violins/strings and a more familiar to most episodes, though sparser, predominantly piano and violin score with lots of high and thinner notes than usual return when Lestat is mentioned between Louis and Armand and Armand talks about listening to the tapes and why Louis did the interview.  It’s very pared back, but the “The drum was my heart” theme (Ahh… is that the origin track for the theme?  Anyway - you know the theme dooo doooooo, do doooo dooooooo one!) is there with high pedal strings as Lestat speaks to Louis and it suddenly drops away as Lestat vanishes…

Armand’s “easeful death” talk with Daniel as he eases him to his death also has a more musically full (and  beautiful) theme.  It reminds me a bit of Moonlight sonata and has Armand-romance-theme vibes in its gentleness - beautiful, delicate and simple.  Then a violin comes in and it becomes increasingly poignant and emotional and eventually (I feel) it has a romance to it too, especially from when Armand says “It’s the comfort we all long for” - it sort of resolves to a musical home.

Again, there is more resolved piano & strings music at the end with Daniel and Louis.

OK, so only a little analysis.  I just watched the episode once and made a few notes.  I basically did it to work out if those repeated piano pedal notes had a specific connection.  And they do - it is specifically tied into (at least as I understood it, from my listening) the uncovering of Louis’ suicide attempt.

Let me know if you’d like me to look at the music ever in the future.  I dunno… part of me feels like killing a fairy to analyse stuff like this rather than just experience the magic, but also I find it very interesting.  This is only a first little touch on stuff.  I could analyse and actually think about it…

Gosh, I adore Daniel Hart’s score!  And I love how unusual and differently this episode was scored compared to other episodes…

Let me know if this was daft of me or if you’d ever like me to look into the music at all.

[tomasz-the-hater]

it must have been said already by someone more eloquent than me, but i find it fascinating how lestat and armand mirror each other in terms of power dynamics and gender roles.

we have lestat. 'how can i say no to you' lestat. the stark father and maker to claudia and somehow later louis, the one that the new orleans tour guide mentions as the master of the house, the one that will not have claudia leave. his violence is loud and physical and outward, his sadism is somewhat acknowledged by him yet keeps happening. he almost kills louis when they fight by his, lestat's, own actions. he regrets it, sure, louis responds to his attacks often, sure. the violence between them is open.

not bothering to clean, only insisting that louis does eat. up to a certain point he even finances louis' wishes and whims. he is promiscuous, he gets lover(s), he is often (though not always) the first to make his desires known (considerable considerables etc etc).

despite the attributes that are considered unmanly (flair for dramatics, inclination to theatre and arts, queerness), he remains the more traditionally masculine figure in the relationship. he is the patriarch of the family, or at least he presents himself in that way in louis' memories.

(it, of course, does not mean that louis falls into the traditionally feminine role. the dichotomy of traditional heterosexual/heteronormative marriage is not fully applicable to even straight relationships because it is primarily a cultural ideal.)

we have armand. 'are you asking, maitre' armand. famously a victim, agentless by his own belief and volition. saying louis can leave in san francisco, yet staying in power by a) mind control (yay!), b) lies, manipulation, witholding information and c) care. he is also violent. he orchestrates louis (and claudia's, and madeleine's) death, yet is discrete about it to the very end; he saves and cares for louis after his suicide attempt, yet all of it is hidden behind mind control for five decades after.

picking lint off the sofa, cleaning up after louis (or claiming to do so) gives armand control over what is seen and what is not, what is kept and what goes. a humble servant rashid. it also gives him a great guilt tripping point: whatever louis does, armand just has to clean up after him, and isn't louis grateful for that? while not stated directly (i think), louis investments in art and real estate are the main source of money for loumand. lastly, an ex-prostitute, armand the one to lay face down while being fucked and seems to have no outside lovers (or louis just has more, ie 128).

not completely feminine, as aren't his gremlin nature and the ultimate violence and power that he keeps over louis both in the '70s and 2022 stay; yet armand still seems pretty much submissive, or wants to be that himself and for louis to be dominant (servant-master, arun-maitre), all the while keeping some control from the shadows. he is the quiet daniel's been longing for, the vacuming valium wife.

the first was louis' husband unforgettable through 77 years of marriage. the second was the proclaimed love of his life and a partnership to spite the first that may have grown into love but not enough to forget lestat. active violent power and shadowy mind control. a kind of husband and a kind of wife to louis, both defining him in and out of partnership

[redwhale]

The emotional shattering of an amazing penultimate S2 episode that leaves you wanting to scream into the void with the infuriating injustice of it all.

Double bonus when 2x05 completely recontexualizes the entire show that has come before.

LOVE it when the climactic event of a tv show's second season involves the protagonists being put through a bullshit sham of a trial (featuring a young woman's diaries) in front of a jeering crowd of onlookers, followed by the main character enacting swift, fiery and over the top vengeance