#paris: accepted

[fascinationstreetmp3]

[zingaplanet]

AHA but you see, what about THIS version of these idiot variants?

Aka the one where they got drunk and danced merrily ever after in Paris??

Owen Wilson and Tom Hiddleston in Midnight in Paris (Woody Allen, 2011)

[learnelle]

I got accepted to study biology in France 😭

[dxxtruction]

I'm genuinely concerned that iwtv (tv) spells out EXACTLY how Louis is unreliable in his narration, but people spin this into what they think unreliable narration more generally means to them, and not what it means to this narrative. Just to be clear here are the ways Louis IS unreliable (If I happened to have missed something feel free to add):

Louis shows signs of forgetting which are normal in people who've endured long term traumatic events. Any relevant pieces of information forgotten are however righted, and sought to be righted.

Like anyone recounting a personal narrative, Louis states how things occurred from this limited perspective and worldview of the personal. He has a personal idea of himself he'd like to get across, much like anyone. He is not omnipotent. But while most might be fine if the person receiving this story interprets their experiences differently, offering to wider perspective, Louis is often very particular about the ways it must be described fitting how he can already perceive it. Which makes for times of there being a rigid perception of events, where broader narrative introspection could've offered a more truthful telling. Though sometimes this actually keeps it more truthful. This character flaw, if you will, is what Daniel is around to challenge, and he's very successful at it, even when his challenging can push in the wrong directions and draw up the wrong conclusions. Bringing up latent memories, and digging out hard truths Louis has long not admitted. At least hitting on something real, in any case. Meaning, for us, the audience, we are still in relatively reliable hands even with this in play, and so are not actually that off from truth when it is being told by Louis, who is intentionally seeking to tell it, even get it. Merely, our narrative is being, in ways, restricted as to how much is being told, and, outside Louis control, obfuscated in its reliance deliberately. (which we'll return to).

To jump off from this, Louis does withhold. He can sometimes tell Daniel something then never explain or have an answer for it he's willing to say. But we see this most apparently in how the diaries exclude certain events. That he doesn't detail much of his time with Armand, especially sexually, is a more subtle way of this. He withholds narratively to protect others, and respect them and their histories from being exploited. Though in other instances he withholds moreso to protect himself from this, and the image he wishes to present to Daniel and thus the world. One could see the act of presenting he and Armand's relationship as, firstly one where Armand is his servant Rashid, but then one of far more affection than it really holds, at this point in time, as withholding the truth as well. One could go a step further and say he does this to preserve a sense of agency and control over his inner and personal life, not just over the interview, but over this relationship as a whole. In a sense, Louis editorializes because the reality of things is beyond what feels his right to tell, and otherwise be endangering to his sense of self to tell. Louis usage of language is another way he keeps a sense of agency, as he can still pick the words he chooses to describe his life, even if his life has been largely out of his control. He can't in ways tell the full truth without giving up something he's simply unwilling to give.

Related to this, how he defends things, or is defensive of things, portrays a distorted idea of reality, but an honest portrayal of his own perspective on it. Most starkly I'd say is his claim to consider himself not abused.

His complicated feelings, especially about loved ones, give rise contradictory statements about people and events. Where he can claim one thing, and likely claim it from his personal feelings about it, but we are then shown events where this claim doesn't exactly live up to itself in every way, in his or others actions.

However, the main way Louis narrative becomes unreliable is through the lies and distortions manufactured into it and the ways in which the interview is undermined by conflicts of interest in it. Louis story is in fact one containing lies, and active distortions of events/thoughts, beyond normal forgetting, because of Armand's conflict in letting the truth be told. Mind though, that by the end of the story, much like [1] these we can presume have all been corrected for. Or at the very least who this information truly pertains to, Louis, is shown to have no interest in questioning that it hasn't been. What is relevant to have been the full truth has all been said.

There's a bit of a cultural thing influencing the interview. By this I mean Louis and Armand together had created a culture of politeness and respect, which discouraged and fought down getting at the heat of conflict, or emotional and mental vulnerability. Setting aside differences. Leaving things unaddressed, or burying issues, making up quickly, and in incomplete ways, as a means of maintaining a peaceful environment, leads to a level of transactionally met falsehood of how either is portraying themselves, especially in relation to one another, playing into what seems beneficial to them, more than what would be confrontational of the truth between them. Armand offends far more aggressively in this, and one can only guess this comes more from a rearing much more solidified in this kind of culture where there is a multitude of rules around maintaining a facade of 'nice' behavior for a presumed benefit of the group. Whereas, even if Louis follows this in some ways, he is more often seen to push against this, actually. (see; 'acting out')

There was a period (post 2x05 especially) where he makes claims about Armand, with no real way to back them, but for the purpose of continually marking Armand as a traitor. So, making purely emotional claims as opposed to knowing he's getting the facts straight. Discrediting Armand, even if he might be telling the truth. (debatable, of course, but I feel the need to include it anyhow).

The only real thing left of Louis unreliability in our conclusion is some residual effects of his doing where things are then left unanswered, and the information to be found in other peoples perspectives, which Louis isn't held responsible to be knowing about. So it's highly doubtful these are to where Louis is ever to be discredited on his telling of things, more that he just simply can't account for everything without betraying himself, and can't be held responsible to what he simply can not have known, or others controlling his narrative either.

To summarize what this all then means is that Louis is not telling any sort of story, at any point along it, worth discrediting, let alone fully, and wherever he was swaying in that direction, past or presently, it has been corrected for, or at least questioned, to where we can draw all the reliable conclusions on it through inference and sound interpretation. Making what we are left with by the end of season 2 the most reliable version of events of Louis personal perspective, even if quite a good sum of it is still left to this inference. It is because of what is left to inference, and what is something outside the realm of his personal perspective, that makes us the more unreliable sources of determining these events. WE are more likely to be distorting it by this point in the story, than Louis is shown to be. Our judgments, can do more impeding on what ends up being Louis honest account, than Louis ever was.

What Louis unreliability is not, is ever entirely dishonest - is ever one making up events, or turning them into something they were not. Everything we are told is a personal account of things that actually happened. It's certainly not one where, by the end, you can point at anything, and claim there's an irreparable falsehood about it. Perspective on events change, but that they had happened and in a sequential way, does not. One might not like or be satisfied with his point of view, yet this changes nothing. Memory is a monster, but Louis', a monster himself, is still real. These are his true memories as he is remembering them.

Beyond that, the more imperative story told here is the emotional one. On this journey of truth telling, Louis is also relieved of being unreliable about his emotions, and in the conclusion, he's living shamelessly for who he is, past and presently. This opens new doors for his character to exist beyond memory. The interview was a journey of self acceptance, and one's fight for having and reclaiming a self. The true take away, frankly, is that Louis got this, and nothing we can infer and interpret otherwise about his truth, where it is left open, can take this away from him.

I guess this is all to say Louis 'unreliable narration' is actually something he works through, perhaps in its realistic entirely (we are always a little unreliable). It's something that gets righted as a major part of the resolved conflicts that happen over the course of the interviews events, as so we, like Louis, are also resolved of this unreliability if we hold it to that same level of being the truth. And that is also if we are inferring and interpreting things left open properly, which is hard to say, even for Louis. That is where all of that 'unreliability' rests on is the things left open to question still, or gain new perspective on, and not that any one part of what we were presented with is falsely constructed. As we have actually gotten it reconstructed out of that.

[starags]

I’m the only one who saw intro-Gabriel and instantly went ‘he looks like anime protagonist’? And I’m absolutely charmed about color palette?

Dark, redish and pinkish colors when we see his past and his struggles,

then purple when he is mourning, (plus the way Adrien's green reflects on him?)

and finally light purple and blue after he find his purpose?

Red and blue make purple, so I guess the mourning part is like the time between his worst and his best, his past and his future, and I love it so much.

Forget main universe, I want series about whatever is happening in this paralel universe - I have so many questions, that needs to be answered.

[sincerelyrf]

it's baffling to me the lengths to which people will try to frame anyone in iwtv as being better than anyone else. everyone who says they love each other is doing it poorly. Lestat apologised to Louis on that stage and it was real and it was also a performance. Armand feels genuine remorse for not saving Claudia, claims that he couldn't prevent it but we all know he could have. Louis loved Claudia and wanted the best for her, and she was a broken doll picked up and used to soothe his guilt. Even Claudia, who did love Louis, has a specific view of everything that happened to them, to her, that made her messy, that made her angry and awful at times. why would you flatten them? why would you take away what makes these emotions real and complicated?

[beccataylor25]

It all started 2 years ago with HX 🛳️

[albaharu]

Finally the m:i movies gave me the bare minimun for shipping 2 gals (one trying to kill the other)

plus saving her life at the end

[bumblingbabooshka]

VOY men + Having sex with another man as a non-gay "Warrior's bond" type activity.

[mobius-m-mobius]

anon requested Owen Wilson + kisses 😘

[divorceblogger]

and also. having read the first book armand turning daniel on a whim Kind of makes sense to me in hindsight. I guess? I don’t know exactly how it fits into his conceptions about vampirism being a curse - which is what ticks me off the most - but what we do know is that in the books he finds daniel in lestat’s house chasing vampires soon after he leaves louis, where he’s possibly once again perceived as louis’s ‘leftovers’, maybe an object who had access to louis and his sympathy in a way he envies. in both iterations of the story there isn’t any significant period he goes through alone, and we see him attach himself to louis even with the threat of not receiving any love in return hanging over his head, hoping that the love will manifest eventually. now that he’s irreparably bound himself to daniel (fathered him, even) it’s not a stretch to anticipate him developing a very unhealthy attachment to daniel.

[justworthlessreblogs]

since i thought of it while i was typing up my last post: fuck jean-pierre, all my homies hate jean-pierre. that man isn't a good mentor and i'll never believe the show's insistence that he is. from what we see of him in the show he seems to come across as more of just a guy who gave kirapika a space to work on their sweets than a guy who actually taught them. all while i was watching the movie i was like. so there's gonna be a moment to show why ciel cares about this guy so much right. right. and it never came. you can absolutely construct an argument that he is partially why kirapika's situation turned out the way it did in paris: the way jean-pierre only ever cares about sweets (the very first time we see him in the movie he's criticizing ciel for slacking on her sweets, iirc) and his emphasis on working alone influencing kirarin, while causing pikario, who was struggling with his sweets and would've benefited a lot from some support, to spiral further. if jean-pierre barely gave kirarin, the star student, the time of day i doubt it was much better for pikario

[essentialthyme]

Ana Barbosu, you're the bronze medalist in our hearts, Brazil was shaking with fear you'd take our gold, congratulations ❤️

[chimera-tail]

Sorry Imane Khelif the Amazons would have loved you

[pynkhues]

Do you think Louis was being truthful when he told Daniel that ‘Paris was the more formative sexual liberation’ for him? I can’t remember the exact episode, but it struck me as though he was comparing it to his experiences with Lestat. On the one hand, I feel as though there is an attitude that anything Louis did outside his relationship with Lestat is void in some way or that he must be fooling himself/brainwashed into thinking that. On the other, I think his relationship with Lestat was also very important in that regard.

Yeah, I do think he's being truthful about it, anon, because I don't really interpret that line to be about individual sexual experiences so much as his experience of his sexuality broadly. Louis' both repressed and oppressed in New Orleans, he has a stifling amount of baggage around his sexuality from the church to his family to the fact that he's living in the racist, homophobic, Southern American town that he grew up in having to cut and contort himself into a shape that allows him to survive. He and Lestat are married for 30 years, and that relationship is, of course, enormously important to Louis, but they're still living that relationship as a secret (albeit as an open secret) until that final night when Louis kisses him on the dance floor before he kills (then saves) him.

A kiss that, as Louis tells us explicitly, is treated as the only sin from that night too depraved to print, a relationship that the true crime tour in the s2 finale reminds us is considered less likely than Claudia having been his child bride instead of his daughter. It's been a century, and New Orleans still won't acknowledge that Louis was gay, let alone what he and Lestat and Claudia were to each other (at least not before Daniel's book).

In Paris, Louis is free from all those constraints on his sexuality. He's disconnected from the church, his family is gone, and he's outside of the American south in an environment that lets him live a life as a gay, Black man more openly. There's absolutely sexual liberation in that that has nothing to do with his relationships with either Lestat or Armand. It's about having the freedom to be able to step into your own sexuality and live it openly instead of hiding it. In that sense, I do think Paris was probably the most formative for the Louis we meet in Dubai in 2022, and was more healing to his sense of self-acceptance than New Orleans could ever have been, regardless of Lestat, because it didn't matter how much they loved each other, the town would not acknowledge them.

He got to live with himself, as himself publicly in Paris, and Armand might not have been the great love of his life, but he was a love that Louis got to claim publicly in a way that he was never allowed to with Lestat in New Orleans. That's significant on so many levels, and, to me at least, is part of the tragedy of their Rue Royale era. I think Paris taught Louis that it's time and places that change things, not love, which speaks to the overall themes of the adaptation - memory is a monster, but time is a gift, and Paris in the 40s gave Louis his first chance at self-acceptance in a way that New Orleans in the 10s could not.

[knockknockitsnickels]

Alya ma'am you don't look like a hot topic employee I'm afraid we're going to have to ask you to leave the paris special