Note: Someone correctly pointed out that at (20:25) I referred to a character as “one of the other Azalea players.” That was an oversight on my part and I apologize. The character, as portrayed by Kyle Roussel, was the real-life jazz musician Ferdinand Jospeh LaMothe/Lemott/LaMenthe (aka Jelly Roll Morton). An important figure in the genre’s history, I have included relevant links about him in the description section for the video. Additional Note: Sorry for the James Somerton mention. I know it has not aged well. Please however consider checking out the other creators I mention!
I will say, Sam Reid tackles the brat prince part of Lestat perfectly. Right on down to the dramatic strut he does, like the world is his personal runway and he's a top model.
I agree that Lestat is abusive to Claudia and Louis. I disagree that it was a bad choice narratively. Sometimes intense and consuming relationships are also abusive ones. In this adaptation, Lestat is an abuser. He feels like he needs to be stronger than those closest to him in order to stop them from leaving him. He uses that strength to enforce a corrosive intimacy. I see this as very human. Terrible. Broken. But very human. The evil that is this Lestat is not a eldritch evil its an essentially human one. I hope that if they try to redeem this Lestat it comes first as he finally recognizes the harm he has done to those he should love best, that he can never change what he has done, that they are not obligated to forgive him, but that he can try to change his behavior in the future.
Honestly the shock about this just says the people shocked have not actually enjoyed much gothic horror NOR have they faced (or at least accepted that they've faced) much toxic relationship abuse. The latter is of course a great thing, like in real life, but you're so right about the storytelling here actually working well.
That fight took my breath away honestly, and with most of if being shown through Claudia’s POV and seeing her react to the chaos around her in a very human way just maximised the realisation that Lestat is an incredibly broken and destructive person, but one that also has near god like powers and how terrifying that is as a concept. I will say, if anyone of the BIPOC community has an issue with the way that fight was shown I will absolutely listen, but just for me watching I wasn’t thinking about Louis as a black person in that moment as I had in the scenes where his race actively affected his story, I just saw him as a father trying to protect his daughter while being unable to tell his husband he doesn’t love him because he loves Lestat enough that he can’t lie, but he doesn’t want to break Lestat’s heart further by telling him the truth 💔 it occurred to me recently a lot of vampire romances reference Wuthering Heights but very few have the toxicity and the misery that I associate with the central relationship in that book but this show really went all in on that aspect and I love it 🤌
As a poc person I don't really took the scene as the racial imbalance of power, but as a classic case of abusive relationship that comes to the bottom, and that unfortunately happens in real life and i agree that's very human, a horrible part of being human, Lestat is not a character that's built to be tolerated. And I also think that as far as I liked Lestat in Ep3, I think that make him a likeble person would take out the weight of his death scene, it was a relief to me actually, after everything they are finally free and I think it's pretty well done, and I agree that they had to sacrifice our empathy for Lestat to make this happens but I think that's something you can give back to him in later seasons, not to redeem him as a abuser, but to show the consequences for him and how it could change it in later life.
He's not that abusive, claudia and louie hated him and plotted against him. Lestat would have been fine with both if claudia wasn't such a horrible twat and louie stopped getting his panties in a twist over her.
@@rebecaalves3280 Also, I can see why some of Lestat's qualities, like his appreciation for humanity or his choice to only kill evil doers is not present here. In a scenario where Louis is a person restrained by his family, his position as a black man and his shame with his own sexuality, it makes sense for Lestat to be a man who sees humanity as a set of limitations, serving the antithesis to Louis' restraints by being a hedonistic, unapologetic vampire. Lestat offers Louis absolute freedom and I think it wouldn't be as effective if Lestat wasn't the way he is in this adaptation (I also I think there is little room for human admiration in this series since the main characters are amidst a bunch of rich, racist white people)
Someone saying Lestat and Louis fighting then referencing it as just "a gay black man being beaten up by a white man" scenario is literal injustice to not only the abusive relationship they've been written and described having for literal decades but also them as a character. Louis isn't just "a gay black man", he is a black, gay man who was not-so-consensually turned into a vampire who has been involved in a tug & pull relationship with his maker ( super toxic and traumatized man btw )who is a much older vampire, privileged in knowledge, strength and in skin tone that behaves just as emotionally as Louis. Like, of course he's not going to be a good person. Yes, of course he's MESSY. Of COURSE their toxic relationship was going to show the bad AND the good. It's just that their version of bad days is a violence that is so supernaturally unhinged and raw, of course we'd feel wildly uncomfortable witnessing it. He is a vampire. He is undead. He hasn't been human for centuries already. I don't know what people expect and if at all, this fight was pretty tame to how bad things could've been. Having undead creatures who murder people (sometimes for fun) coming home, cuddling on the couch or having romcom arguments about forgetting their 1000th anniversary like it's a normal Tuesday is just not realistic. Does it sound entertaining? Of course it does but that's what this show was going to be about, it also wasn't what Rice's texts were about either.
Sam Reid as Lestat is the embodiment of a hyper sexual, spoil brat, supermodel prince with serious anger issues and wit for miles and Im here for all of it.
The perspective a lot of fans have on Lestat is really wild to me given that he fed on slaves in the first book. His domestic abuse switch up makes perfect sense to me. Rereading the first book last year I saw a much older man prey on a vulnerable younger man. I saw a man who tossed aside his husband once he was bored of him and chased other men and women as entertainment. Jealous possessive Lestat has always been there infront of us. Lestat turned a toddler into a vampire to baby trap the young grieving man he had a toxic relationship with, in book. The show is playing off that. There's nothing sympathetic about Lestat to my nearly 30 year old mind rereading the first book. He had a sad start. Most abusers do. Lestat only toes lines he wants to toe.
I also thought that the characterization of Lestat between the two books was very different since Louis’s recollections of Lestat made him seem more like an ass. TVL though presents a more nuanced character that has more of the loving side of Louis’ recollections and less of the monster.
Much older man? Isn't their age difference in the books like six years? Lestat was turned when he was 20, then he was a vampire for ten years before travelling to America where he met and turned Louis who was 24-ish at the time. I agree with your view on his character though.
Okay because I never get why people say the ep 5 doesn’t make any sense when actually does. Lestat showed multiple times how abusive he was. Regardless if it was emotionally, psychologically, mentally, etc. He even told Louis he was restraining himself a lot while together.
Having read the entire series, the picture of Lestat gets a bit muddier. Louis almost certainly lied about a lot of things Lestat did--you have to remember this interview was before their reconciliation and Louis definitely holds many grudges, and it's possible he was trying to provoke some interaction with Lestat. And in the second book Lestat almost certainly lies about how innocent he was too, claiming he only ever feeds from 'evildoers' and knows they are such because he can read their minds; a claim that even he can't keep up with for the entire text since he doesn't always stick to this rule. Things become clearer later on when you see a lot of the individuals who know them both and comb through their history and some of the books taking a 3rd person perspective. But still, the truth is extremely obscured between Lestat's lies about himself, how people feel about him, and the vampiric urges of pretty much any narrators who interacted with him. Lestat is a complicated person, and no doubt damaged. Past rejection makes him so jealous and clinging that he turns himself into a monster. He's also absolutely an abuser, who tried to trap Louis, and later, as he grew to like her, Claudia. But let's not forget that Louis and Claudia are every bit like him. Louis is described by Akasha as having killed "without regard for age or sex or will to live". Claudia is canonically almost exactly like Lestat, trying to trap Louis first through guilt then attempting to replace him by forcing him to turn Madeleine with that same guilt. She kills indiscriminately and is claimed to drink far more than Lestat or Louis. I'm not excusing Lestat here, on the contrary I'm trying to show that every vampire in this series is a fucked up, damaged person who does horrible things to random innocent people and even more-so to those that are actually in their (un)lives.
i know this is just a difference of opinion and im not the first to say it, but Lestat's character in the books (which i am a HUGE fan of and have been since i was 14) has always read as that of a domestic abuser to me. Abusers can be nuanced characters because in real life abusers are still people. He isnt a "psychopath", and pathologizing abuse isn't always helpful or accurate. the first half of the IWTV book has always read to me as a story of someone escaping an abusive relationship. It might just depend on which version of his characterization one is more attached to, since it changes so much in the books, but this felt perfectly in character to me. You can be sympathetic to his situation while still recognizing his canon book actions for what they were: abusive. You're right that in the book it wasn't physically abusive, mostly emotionally abusive, but it genuinely doesn't seem like that much of a leap to me. It's just the show doing what it has done in other areas as well: taking subtext and making it more explicit. also, on the point of his character seeming messy because he has to be evil but seductive at the same time. anyone who has ever been in an abusive relationship will tell you that abusers ARE seductive and ARE charming and can have moments of real loving kindness. Otherwise, why would people be in those relationships in the first place? The emotional whiplash and not knowing what the reaction could be; the feeling of a roulette where you don't know if you're going to get the loving partner or the monster; thats where a lot of the trauma comes from, just as much as from the acts of violence themselves. I definitely respect mixed feelings on whether this is a good or accurate representation of Lestat's book characterization, but it is 100% a cohesive characterization on its own to me.
Thank you for your feedback. In retrospect “psychopath” was probably not the best term to use and I certainly don’t want to perpetuate harmful stereotypes as it pertains to pathologizing abuse. I will try to be more careful in the future.
I think it depends on what you mean by abuse. He certainly is a narcissist and manipulative, but he rarely acts out of malice in the books. In fact from his POV, he's usually trying to do what *he* thinks is in everyone's best interests, unless he's lashing out emotionally. He's so emotional in fact that he can never have good judgement. I think this is why Louis is able to love him despite everything. Narcissists can suck the life out of everyone around them whether they're trying to or not, but I'd still distinguish between deliberate and non-deliberate abuse.
@@vanyadolly for the abused, whether hurt was the core intent means nothing. Very frequently it isn't - not to the abuser, because like you say, a lot of abuse comes from incredible emotional volatility. It's not so much a planned cruelty, rather lashing out in a martyr kind of way. It's still abuse.
Not every abuser acts out of conscious malice. How many abusive, both physical and emotional, parents were just trying to "toughen" their kids up, or teach them discipline, or keep them from sinning and burning in hell? @@vanyadolly
@@Ceares Trying to toughen someone up is conscious malice and abuse by definition, whether you have an end goal or not. That's not the argument I'm making and certainly not anything Lestat has done.
I don't think Lestat nearly killing Louis is out of character for him from the books. Remember Claudia telling Louis "he won't let us leave"? Lestat is never violent to Louis in the original novel, but the threat of violence is constantly hanging over their heads. Apart from the threat of physical abuse, Lestat is an emotional abuser. He forces his own beliefs onto Louis, minimises Louis' thoughts and feelings - it's not in the books, but Lestat calling the interview "whinging, Louis, always whinging" in the film is pretty in character.
Considering his character traits and the fact that the show is really hammering in how vile the European vampires are now w/ season 2 coming out yeahh Lestat is kinda a fucked up lil guy lmao
Lestat, with holds information to Louis to keep him, as a companion and to use his wealth, not sharing history is part of the book's.. Armand telling Louis he's the oldest living Vampire... Only Marius willingly shares knowledge..
That's the thing though, he was violent to Louis in the 1st book as well. Just not to this caliber. So many people forget that... that he was aggressive towards Louis in the first book. He very much was physically abusive as well. Just not in the way that most people view and consider DV, and it was never to this caliber, nor this intentional. That's why so many book fans get and were so hung up on it being "out of character" for Lestat. People who claim, that he was never aggressive at all, and/or that he never "hurt" Louis, in the books. Just don't remember the 1st book. Which these first two seasons are adaptions of.
I wonder if Lestat's over-the-top awfulness is due to (spoiler alert) a certain disguised character influencing Louis' story through mental manipulation, threats, etc.
If they base part 2 in Lestat the Vampire book they can include Lestat's point of view. In the book Lestat says he actually loved Louis and Claudia was their daughter. Louis was like clinically depressed since he was turned and Claudia wanted to see the world but Lestat was afraid other vampires (les théatre de vampires specifically) would harm them. And he was himself also pretty inexperienced as a vampire and his own conversion was pretty traumatic.
He left the “OldWorld “ due to Marius and Akasha .Enkil would kill Lestat. Lestat never told Louis and Claudia the history cause he was afraid for them .
no adaptation, no matter how faithful to the source matterial, will satisfy everyone. there are going to be people who hate a section, or a character change or even major story changes.
Still the LOTR film trilogy is universally loved, the Harry Potter movies still have big following, Kubrick's The Shining is a cult horror classic even with Stephen King hates it, etc... Is interesting that some adaptations (faithful or not) are beloved by the mainstream audience and others don't have that luck
@@TheHalloweenSpirit Yet the Hobbit is not universally loved and the HP movies are forever tainted by the cursed child and fantastic beasts movie( plus JK Rowling being a total Terf)
I believe the reason why the writers took the direction in making Lestat worse then book Lestat is to show just how manipulated Louis actually is by (spoiler alert) “the love of his life”. If I remember correctly ‘you know who’ absolutely hated Lestat way before Louis was even in the picture, and now he is twisting Louis memories to make Louis hate Lestat too.
Unless they’ve dramatically warped Armand’s abilities, this is not how his mind gift works at all. He’s a great liar, yes. He can project horrifying images into others minds, yes. He can create false memories and completely warp others personalities and schemas? No, he was absolutely never able to do that in the books and had he been able to, it would have been a VERY different story. I’m sure he has swayed Louis’s bias a bit, definitely in an attempt to keep Louis under his wing, but keep in mind also that this interview has always been represented as a method of character assassination on Louis’s part, intentionally.
@@nataliewohlfert662 It's not out of the question anymore, apparently vampires can be just immune to to the sun if you lived for at least 500 years in this "Immortal Universe".
@@Charolette21 that is actually canonically accurate (even though he’s lying)- their sensitivity lessens the older and more powerful they are. He can’t just hang out in the sun but he’d absolutely be able to walk through it for half of a second relatively unphased. He is on his own 500 years old but he’s also one of the only fledglings of Marius, he wasn’t weak even as a new vampire.
@@nataliewohlfert662 Despite all of that, he still might get more than a few seconds in the sun this time. Every adaptation so far had made vampires so much stronger than their book counterparts, Louis and Claudia can read minds from the jump now.
On the other hand I feel like this kind of takes away from Louis' agency. I mean yes, he's constantly manipulated by both Lestat and Claudia, but a big part of that is because of his own passivity and willingness to go along with whatever's happening rather than taking a stand. He has some accountability in their family unit and isn't just a helpless victim.
Yes, people keep praising the show for "representation", and overall I love it, but there are at least three things that this show was terrible at: doing justice to its female characters (save Madeleine, I guess), making a decent attempt at making its French characters sound French, and not portraying Romania as backwards and barbaric...
Controversial or not, for me the show brings something new that's cool, they delve into tropes that work for TV like gore/violence and sex, and a lot of the book works better in the book and visually tends to lose appeal or not translates at all or even it's totally inappropriate now, I really didn't want to see a romanticized plantation owner when society is still trying to rewrite history, that slaves benefited from slavery. I think the series reworks changes well for the most part. it can be appreciated as a third thing of its own within the universe.
They could have kept the timeline still had Louis be black but be the plantation owner. That was definitely a thing so it would have been true to history and the book. I mean why is exploitation of women seen as somehow better. As a black woman I thought it was a silly change.
The acting & settings were beautiful. I'm at least some were done on location. I learned my love of New Orleans from Anne Rice. My ex husband (the first time for & my Mardi Gras) I knew where everything, lots of grast hints for off the beaten path for places to go. The Mayfair Witches give even MORE - I knew where even MORE places to eat (Out favorite blonde Bombshell doesn't eat ) & go and hear music. It's great she puts them all in there. It's like "20 great things to do in NOLA!!. Id encourage everyone to go. It will change your life.
@@fourizereviews5123 I think you (and """"a lot"""" or aka a vocal minority) live in such weird buble. It's like making a movie set in France during the WWII era but without all the background related to this specific era. Or worse (the thing you advocate) adapting a book based on France WWII era but deciding to change the background because people could say that you are a pro nazi. You do realize how childish and dangerous it is, do you? And this is exactly what you advocate for. You do realize that Michael Fassenbender in 12 Year a slave was not an actual slave holder? Nor was he a racist anti human when he played Magneto. You do realize that erasing content will not erase History, right? Now, and it's even more relevant (according you actually read the book... but the more i read the arguments made by those who love the show, the more i genuinely think a lot of people actually did not!): you do realize that Louis being the owner of a plantation is actually a minor detail in terms of page content in the first book (and i'm not even mentioning the sequels)? Now, because i see you coming, about the "romanticized" argument: you do realize that for a looooot of people in the past, slavery was either: normal, good, bad yet also a trend they just had to deal with, like us with so many things nowadays that will blow the minds of the next centuries' people. So Louis as a plantation slave owner was not "rOmAnticIzEd", it was actually pretty normal. And saying that is not being pro slavery. It really blows my mind how woke people and their minions can live in such a distant intellectual and emotional reality. Grow up.
Louis is not a romanticized plantation owner. He's an exploitator of human life both as a human, and as a vampire. His privilege and passivity is a central aspect of his character. Personally I have more issues with them rewriting history as "oh, it wasn't so bad to be black after all!"
I have conflicting feelings about the context of episode five, but on the whole I think it works more so than not. I appreciate the premise of your argument regarding the tension between the creators of the show wanting to set Lestat up as the more complex protagonist of the later books and needing him to serve a narrative function in Louis' story. You are absolutely correct, it is messy. But it's messy because Lestat is an eternal enigma. No one can truly know him because of the way Rice's relationship with him as creator evolved over the years, sometimes in contradictory ways. In the novels this unevenness is easier to rationalize because there's a clear correlation between immortality and erratic behavior as sanity erodes. In the adaptations this is much harder to convey because of the constraints of the medium. It can often seem inconsistent because a viewing audience usually isn't afforded the grace of anticipating character shifts in the way a reader is. So while I see the intent, I struggle with reviews that claim that Lestat isn't acting like Lestat. I don't think anyone knows what it means to be Lestat, not the other vampires around him, and not even he himself at times. We all know certain things about him. His sense of humor, his tastes, some likes and dislikes, his intellect. But the one thing no one in universe or otherwise knows is how to predict what he'll do next. You never know which Lestat you're going to get. All this to say that I don't believe domestic violence is off the table for him. Any fan of the series will agree that he's capable of cruelty, manipulation, and emotional abuse. Therefore I don't think it's unreasonable to suppose that a being with immense physical prowess and a demonstrably volatile understanding of love would cross the line to domestic violence. Louis believes he would never cross that line because, like many abuse victims, he can't conceptualize the imminent harm he's in the way of until it's too late. I think if the showrunners had approached the vampire as an allegory for grief as you so eloquently put it, then we would see Lestat's abuse of Louis as more psychological like it is in the books. Because grief is a torment of the mind. But the story we were told in the show is one of twisted seduction, so the harm done needs to be tangible, physical, like the core of their attraction. And that can be hard to reconcile with the beautiful Byronic Brat Prince we've come to know. I do wonder if we hadn't actually seen the fight and it was alluded to gradually throughout the interview and more foreshadowing in Louis' flashbacks then it would've been more palatable. Sometimes seeing the aftermath of a terrible act and being left to come to your own conclusion about what you thought you knew is more nuanced and poignant than witnessing the act itself. I did love Molloy calling Louis' framing of their relationship out. And I'm excited to see how the showrunners and Sam take adapting Lestat further. I think he's great. Sorry for the essay. I'm enjoying your content!
People, I think you fell in love so hard for Lestat that you ignored that he was ALWAYS a violent and narcissistic character. From the very first moment. I don't understand why you are so shocked about that episode. Even the scene when he turned Louis into a vampire is so violent! Lestat is meant to be a complex character and he is REALLY seductive. But he is violent and toxic.
As someone who watched the series first before watching the movie and is now reading the first book, I’m honestly surprised people were ever charmed by Lestat. I’m sure the character is developed more in later books and all that but from what I saw in the movie and what I’ve read in the first couple chapters, Lestat is an annoying callous freeloader. Sam Reid’s Lestat however is incredibly charming and alluring and lovable in my opinion. In the first episode after he just murdered the priests I found myself, like Louis, somehow completely disarmed and seduced. I kept asking myself “is it bad that I would fall for him too? Because this is working for me.”
I love this adaptation, faults and all. I think Rolin and the cast brought to life Anne Rice's world and reminding old fans like myself why we loved it in the past. Jacob Anderson and Sam Reid SHINE as the main vampires and seeing them together is like watching a ballet. Baily as Claudia will be greatly missed and older Daniel is KING!!! This Lestat is the Brat Prince we will come to love AND HATE. He is a brat after all and Sam brings all the nuances to his character. I cannot wait for season two!!!!!
I genuinely appreciated this thorough analysis, and believe it was extremely well done. That being said, it’s exhausting to hear how popular it is to criticize and pretend sexual assault and domestic abuse, among other things-aren’t appropriate to be reflected in art. IMO this desire to have characters be all good or all bad is so frustrating. Good art is not about making people comfortable, it’s about telling the story with a whole heart. As an adaptation for new audiences, I do not feel the decision to add Claudia’s assault or show Lestat as extremely abusive was a cop out or tone deaf-it’s exactly the opposite. For the first time in history we have just begun having real conversations about trauma and the circumstances around it. The cop out would’ve been NOT to take the risk or to bring them up. We can have safe spaces and should, but we cannot continue to look away from relevant issues and forget what everyone wants to be safe from. Young girls DO have their lives changed after such horrors EVERYDAY, and people are loved and deeply love people who hurt them (mentally and physically) because they don’t know what real love should be. These issues, just like racism, are issues of misused power and the pain of it, so who better to convey it than vampires-and why is it so wrong for art to reflect it? Doesn’t calling out the complexities of our bullshit trauma validate it? Do you think NOT addressing it to stay comfortable is better? It drives me nuts to think that’s how a new generation believes healing occurs! Don’t say that! Don’t look at that! Don’t talk about that! The “good guy” isn’t supposed to do that! Really? No shit! The good guy/bad guy trope is an illusion. ALL people have the capacity for both good and evil, and in 2024 we should be able to talk about it. The irony in the ways so many people have perceived this show, and shows attempting to address similar topics is baffling! Art, true art, is meant to evolve and provoke and start conversations-and I haven’t seen a show do it this successfully in ages. I am deeply saddened that Anne Rice did not sit with the makers and watch, but I choose to believe she reached right through the veil and helped them make this impossible adaptation worthy of her work and theirs. Anne’s work survives because of the risks she took, and the writers (clearly fueled from beyond) have this hit on their hands for being as brave. Art imitates life, and real life is not a k-drama where the heroes and villains are clearly marked. K-drama style storytelling is fun and visual, but it’s not food for the soul-it is candy. We are here having real conversations about all those uncomfortable “cop outs” because they took a leap of faith and people were moved-many just weren’t expecting it to be so real, which was Anne’s goal all along. Most of us waited to watch it because we all assumed we would get rebooted to death, just as we have for over a decade or more. Those writers gave us gold from that beautiful cannon, which is why the strike mattered so much! It’s so easy to stand in the balcony and pee on the writers, because no one understands, or seems to care,about the veins they have to open to entertain us. If anyone should be offended, it’s the writers who spent months/years handling this work with such reverence-then getting accused of missteps, getting it wrong, or copping out every time some of you saw something you didn’t expect and got uncomfortable. That’s the hill I’ll die on.
Keep in mine I’m only about 30 minutes in and I’m not sure if it’s touched on later in the video; I think Lestat’s depiction and constant reference to the first interview is doubling down on the “Louis is an unreliable narraror”. He was an unreliable narrator in the first interview and he is currently in this interview. We do not know the true story because we only have his perspective. I think this is a purposeful choice by the creators.
that's what I thought daniel constantly calls louis out for being unreliable and we see that louis built lestat up as a monster in his head. lestat is as messey as louis feelings about him
Lestat in the first book kills everyone, not just evildoers. People forget that Claudia initially manages to poison him by offering him twin children to eat. He also looks down on humanity all the time. And I think in season 2 it will come out that Armand is psychically manipulating Louis’ memory.
I think the most important think to remember about this adaptation is that the story is being told through Louis' viewpoint. Its a shame how few people seem to understand the concept of "unreliable narrator". It seems like "I saw it, so it MUST be true." (I feel that although much of the information is coming from Claudia's diaries, Louis is injecting his perspective as he talks to Daniel.) Many of the changes could have been an indication of how Louis' worldview had changed. What we know now about psychology today is vastly different than what we knew in the 1970's. For one, there's a greater public awareness of toxic relationships. So the psychotic behavior we're seeing now could be the result of Louis having a better understanding of Lestat's actions. But, the reverse can also be true: today's psychological paradigms could lead to revisionism on the part of Louis. Our understanding of psychology is sometimes based on societal norms. A famous example is in the DSM I. It listed homosexuality as "a sociopathic personality disturbance." In the DSM II, homosexuality was no long listed as a disorder. Another issue is that we assume that modern psychology is applicable to older societies. Were there differences between modern cognition and 18th century cognition? Modern languages show cognitive relativity; different languages activate different areas of the brain. I think its reasonable that humans may have relative psychology based on the societies they are a part of. It could be that Louis doesn't have the knowledge required to understand Lestat. Also, Louis could be lying to himself. He feels bad about how he failed Claudia, and exaggerating Lestat's monstrousness could be his way of shifting some of the blame. Of course, he wouldn't realize that is what he's doing. And while his companion may be able to read his thoughts, I think he loves Louis too much to want to psychoanalyze him and shatter his illusions. Another possibility: Louis may have toned down the story when he first told it to Daniel. Louis wanted a nuanced story from the beginning. Unfortunately, he was telling that story to a young Daniel would likely have failed to understand that. I don't think Louis ever stopped loving Lestat; kind of a "yes, he did monstrous things, but he wasn't always like that and even though I hate him, I still love him." A young Daniel would have likely seen Lestat as a traditional vampire monster. (Before Anne Rice, there were very few stories with sympathetic vampires.) Yet another possibility: Claudia might have intended for Louis to read her diaries when she wrote them. Painting Lestat as more cruel/evil than he really was might have helped pull Louis away from Lestat. I doubt the show creators were considering these things, but for me it doesn't matter. I am firmly in the "death of the author" camp. I don't really care about what Anne Rice or the show creators intended. I care about what they actually created. I love the Anne Rice novels, and so far, I love the show and find that the changes actually enhance the story.
I think including the SA was actually a very contemporary and honest in addressing how common SA is for too many people (women). For a lot of us, SA is part of our personal story lines. Seeing it included in such a STRONG female’s experiences may help to diminish the self blame some people may have internalized.
lestat in the show is a natural progression or "unmasking" of the un balanced power dynamic and predatory characterisation. Him snapping one day makes sense since his violence was shown earlier. louis really thought "oh he wont do that to me, he loves me". I think how uncomfortable the scene feels is kinda the point.
I loved this series. Though I read the entire chronicles as a teenager (and am currently re-reading them 15 years later to freshen my memory), I had always wanted to see a faithful adaptation of the chronicles. But even as a teen, I knew that a faithful adaptation was a tall order. After the 1994 movie (which my Dad and I still love), we waited decades for a movie series or tv series, but the only thing to show for it was the horrible Queen of the Damned movie. This new show can stand on its own, and may be the best tv adaption any chronicles fan will ever see. So after waiting my whole life, I treasure this show for the great acting, the storytelling, and giving us fans some semblance of the chronicles universe we love.
When I first read IWTV 30y ago, I hated the Lestat character. It wasn’t until TVL that I started liking /loving him. Sam Reid had said on a couple of occasions, “we are doing the books.” So I feel all of what we witnessed reflects that.
I feel like Louis being black and gay is actually a stroke of genius in this adaptation, beyond just being "woke". It means that even when he was a human (unlike the movie version) he was an outcast because he was black, which was a trait he couldn't hide. But he was also gay, being a trait he could hide, and had to at that time. Then he becomes a vampire, with all the superficial power that comes with, BUT even then, he now has another much more frightening thing about his identity he needs to hide from the world, even as his sexuality becomes more socially accepted. It's this sort of irony that makes his characer work so well. Despite this power he has, hes now just a different, more existential and inescapable kind of prisoner. That internal conflict is the core of the character. His arc is about finding who he is in spite of these factors he can't control. It's about maintaining connection to his humanity. He's expected to kill with a sense of impunity, even entitlement. Yet he is determined to be a compassionate, connected being. There's a bilogical imperative and peer pressure at play. Louis' journey is about bravely being who he is, and understanding what that means, no matter the cost. This show is great. All the important shit is still there.
I disagree with how you view this as a second interview with Daniel. It gives Daniel more agency and the ability to call Louis out on bullshit. We know that he is a very unreliable narrator based in The Vampire Lestat. We need Daniel to not fan girl over him like the original Daniel
I do appreciate your takes on this series and I largely agree, or am sympathetic, with most of them. I would like to highlight one defense of the changes to Lestat that you didn’t grapple with and that sort of crystalizes in Amber why the creators included the DV scene. Lestat, as written by Anne Rice IS an abuser. He literally burns down his BF’s house because he’s angry with him (abuse) and commits one definite, and one coded, SA in The Body Thief (I think the house burning is in the body thief as well). The “coded” SA would be the turning of someone into a vampire against their will. Mind you, this comes AFTER he’s supposed to feel guilty about having committed SA in this same novel. The writer of episode 5 actually called out Lestat’s actions in the novel as part of the motivation for including his beating Louis and to me, it works. If you think DV is hard for a character to come back from when adapted from book to screen, try depicting any of those actions on a television show and seeing how the fandom takes it. Just because Anne Rice attempts to explain away or reframe these actions in the text doesn’t mean they’re something other than what they were. I think a lot of book fans have this idea of Lestat in their head clouded in nostalgia but revisit the text and he’s quite a bit worst. Beating Louis is totally in his wheelhouse. I don’t think the arbitrary “there is a line he won’t cross” defense works when taking ALL of book Lestat’s actions into account. I also think there’s room in this discussion for media literacy. Not to suggest you don’t have good media literacy, it seems fantastic from your content. But I’m reminded of another creator’s video on how book fandoms often react when POC are cast to play characters who are explicitly of that same race in the books. Like Rue from Hunger Games. I think there is something to the way our brains process and remember characterizations in print and will form impressions of them that may not hold up to black and white readings of the text.
Thank you so much for your nuanced feedback. I definitely wish I had grappled a little more with my statement that there were lines Lestat “wouldn’t cross,” as I was aware that other actions he commits in the novel could definitely be seen as just as unforgivable. I think I was referring more to the fact that I didn’t believe book Lestat would ever hurt Louis to the extent he did in the series, but I should’ve been clearer. The DV scene was certainly a contentious issue for the fan base and I don’t envy the creators the pressure of making that creative decision. Also, 100 percent agree with your comment about fandom and nostalgia.
@@fourizereviews5123 Thanks for engaging with my comment. I take your point about Lestat’s behavior toward Louis and I do agree that Anne was clear in her depiction of Lestat when it comes to interacting with Louis. The physical violence doesn’t exist. However, there’s the reality of the physical fight between him and Armand later in the series (earlier in the timeline). I think the suggestion (not by you but by Anne as the voice of God here) that Lestat is capable of great violence to others but not to his active partner is a dangerous one. It’s outdated thinking which is common for the time it was written because if one’s partner exhibits that sort of violence outside of the home, it’s likely to make it way into the home too. See the rate of DV by policemen against their spouses. I like that the creators seemed to know this instinctually and I felt the DV scene demonstrates a love for the source material as well as a modern sensibility all at once. This feeling is REALLY challenged by the treatment of Claudia and her SA which, like you, I felt was a bizarre inclusion coming on the heels of the same exact storyline being met so harshly by fans of game of thrones. I can only guess it’s the result of having more than one cook in the kitchen. Idk, but your points there were excellent. And thanks for giving love to Jacob Anderson’s portrayal. He had a hat trick playing one character at so many different points in his life and I feel the fandom hasn’t given him the level of admiration he deserves.
@@isabelb.4917 I agree. Before the show premiered, I revisited the first few books, up through body thief, then I just started reading the synopsis of the rest and was reminded of the tone Anne uses writing these stories. Things like rape, murder and violence aren’t generally contextualized through a moral lens. It’s a bit shocking revisiting the vampire Armand in 2022. There’s a lot of relationships explored there which are blatantly pedophilic and it’s never discussed or contextualized as a negative. Anne just didn’t write that way. Her characters do horrible things and we just accept it and move on because that’s the way she wrote.
I think it has to do with "smartness" as an abuser that Lestat is, I can't think of him beaten Louis knowing that Louis already dislike him, I have just read the 1st book and it seems that Lestat was trying to do the right thing with Louis to keep him, think of it as manipulation tactic.
@@Buzz0Killington but he beat up Armand because Armand tried to violate him (by drink his blood without permission) so you putting this as an example that least is a abuser because he enjoys making others suffer is odd
For me, Louis' guilt over feeding from humans from the get-go made complete sense, as in the prior episode he had expressed how he disliked how he 'preyed' on men's weaknesses, and how it was an obligation to his family that he was a pimp. Lestat offered Louis freedom from his societal constraints during that last scene of ep1, but his offer comes to no fruition, as Louis is now feeding off men in a very intentional, literal way rather than their emotional miseries. regardless in difference of opinion/perception, great video essay! Lots of great conversation is being had about this brilliantly written show
trauma does not make you stronger - the strength a person has to endure and overcome an experience comes from within, never credit that resilience to another
The physical reaction I had when you did the Lestat the Musical pop up. I love that adaptation. Its so bad that it makes me love it more. Great songs, bad script, almost accurate. My heart will always hold the tv show as the top adaptation no matter how off it is. It's so fun and new and sorta brings a new story out.
On the whole Lestat characterization, I feel like a part of it was wanting a more virtuous Louis and Claudia. I think they were more gray in the original novel and Lestat was constantly seducing and cajoling them down to his level, but the change to make Louis more palatable as a character inevitably had to cast Lestat as even more of a villian. I didn’t find book Louis entirely sympathetic or reliable, but I felt that was part of the appeal. I like that the original story has you horrified that you feel for any of its characters. It might be just me, but I found it a fascinating, deeply uncomfortable read, and I'd love to see an adaptation grapple with that moral horror a little more. (Still not a Lestat apologist)
I agree and disagree about Lestat. I definitely think Sam Reid is playing him as the nuanced character in the totality of the TVC, but I do agree that he had to be written as a violent psychopath for the reasons stated, and yeah that juxtaposition is jarring. I do also believe that all isn’t as it seems, and we haven’t seen any of this from Lestat’s pov yet.🤷🏽♀️ ETA: I think I do agree though that Tomstat’s version was able to retain all of Lestat’s nuance even though he was playing the antagonist from the first book, and yes it’s because Anne wrote the screenplay. I don’t think all the writers on the show necessarily agree when it comes to Lestat’s character and that’s why we’re seeing so many contradictions. I don’t envy how they’ll have to come up with a way to make Lestat sympathetic to get the audience on board for season 3.😬
@@anacarolmsc But Tomstat seems closer to book Lestat in all of the novels. I mean I can't remember him ever beating Louis up? And even in Interview, Louis never wanted him dead. He just goes along with Claudia the way he goes along with everything she and Lestat decide.
I get why Book Lestat fans may be upset, but as a POC, episode 5 was my favorite episode of season 1 (Episodes 1 and 7 being close behind). The Lestat shown in episodes 1-4 would be 100% abusive, and the road to getting there was built well. Even if memory stuff comes into play, the season as a whole is still a fantastic but brutal and honest depiction of emotional and physical abuse by a loved one. I read most of the books, but I don't love them, and the changes made for the show were changes that I loved. This show made me love Louis and Claudia, characters that I did not care for in the book. Great review, I thoroughly enjoyed watching this video, even if we disagree on some stuff.
The meta commentary on how differently events are viewed during the second interview versus in the first interview actually makes perfect sense, in my opinion-because the Vampire Chronicles(books) fandom has ALWAYS hotly debated Book 1(Lestat's characterization through Louis' POV) versus Book 2(Lestat's characterization through Lestat's own POV), pointed to how Lestat is almost like two completely different characters from one book to the other, and argued pretty much endlessly over which version of Lestat is the true/definitive version of the character or not and such. I think it was also about paying homage to the previous movie adaptation's existence though, not just to the books; I think it was more about declaring that they weren't trying to remake or undo the movie's adaptation, they just wanted to pick up that legacy[ along with the legacy of the book series] and carry it onward one step further beyond the footsteps left behind by that film. The AMC tv series is also chock full of nods to various /monster/vampire movies and tv series from throughout history, and nods to many various other meta VC fandom culture elements(like the cover/art on a particular edition of one of the books that featured Lestat/Louis/Claudia dressed all in white); which I feel is all actually kinda fabulous, because Anne Rice based her book vampires on old movie vampires more than on anything else and was a huge fan of keeping up with various other vampire movies and tv series over the years and often commenting on them or her personal impressions of them, and I personally think it is a great nod also to the way that Ricean vampires became super influential and oft nodded to by other vampire fiction/media for decades after as well. I also like the way it kinda pays homage to the fact that Anne Rice always conceived her vampires as living in then-current days, as if they might have been true stories happening at the time when they were first published-it's very reminiscent of old gothic fiction that was often framed as if they could have been "true" stories really happening in those times. And old!Daniel in the tv series states that he recognizes his voice on the tapes but doesn't remember it happening at all, clearly implying that he has either forgotten or had the previous encountered erased from his memory until Louis contacts him and dredges it up again, so there's potentially good in-universe reason for why his life in the tv series has played out differently(So it's also possibly a bit of meta nod I think maybe to the fact that the characters were portrayed by completely different actors in the movie version than in the tv series, too; so it "was them", but it also "wasn't" them😊🤭🤭😁😂💖).
As someone who’s been in a gay toxic first relationship with an abusive narcissist who was a lot older than me, I honestly felt very seen by this show. The grooming, the gaslighting, the seemingly extreme contradictions in personality, the flash mood swings, Louis’ guilt for hating him because he can still see the good. As a metaphor for an abusive relationship, it’s excellent, and I think it explains Louis’ decision to kill Lestat better than the book did. I think Lestat wasn’t completely “done” as a character in IwtV, and that the Lestat from the show makes more sense for that story. The Lestat that he becomes feels like a completely different character, and that will be his character arc in the next seasons and spin offs they manage to make.
TH-cam randomly brought up your vid today. Not only do I love your lengthy analysis as I am a huge Anne Rice vampire fan, but big props to you for sourcing all the other TH-camrs who have covered this and I have watched! **subscribed**
One of the main things about the first book is that Louis is a very very unreliable narrator so I think they are going to do something about that about Lestat, we haven't seen anything from his pov, specially with Armand still involved with Louis
all people nowadays want are remakes and remakes of remakes, it tiring this show is a masterclass of adaptations. you have a story molded fresh for a new media with no interest in replicating the events of the original, but deep dive into other ideas and themes brought up by the books and expanded. that's what a copy of someones work, but a study of it.
I haven’t read the Vampire Chronicles yet but I really love how both Tom and Sam depict Lestat, he’s such a multifaceted character. I tend to enjoy all versions of him, but I do think it’s important to not overlook how different his dynamic is with Louis now that he’s black, I appreciate when non-black ppl acknowledge that and it’s good that y’all pointed that out
I think it’s cool to legitimise changes to the story in the eyes of fans. It shows that you know what the audience might be feeling so you give them a resolution to what you anticipate they are going to think. I’ve always admired writers who do that. It’s like having a distant conversation with the audience.
just finished season 1 and ran to youtube loll, this was a good video! i will say though as someone who experienced a decade of DV and years of IPV i actually found the explicit portrayal of abuse more interesting and thought provoking, it made me ponder louis and lestat’s relationship and how their dynamic in its simplest form is a very familiar feeling to myself and many other survivors, watching lestat’s cycle of being charming and loving, falling apart and hurting people, then attempting to buy their love back with lavish gifts only made his death scene that much more guttural and heart wrenching i personally appreciated the direction the writers took, but i definitely understand where people who have a problem with it are coming from
haven’t watched the show or read the book, but changing Louis’ race and introducing the problems he faces as a black man makes a lot more sense for his character. I found it very ironic for him to be burdened with chronic empathy and also be a plantation owner 💀
Re: lestat being evil, as a Vampire Story this gothic love story between a volatile immortal and his out of his depth boytoy SLAPS. I don't actually much care for Rice's authorial intent or fans' love for Lestat. Abusers are multi-layered characters and this is a brilliant depiction of it. We do unfortunately all fall in love with them in the wrong circumstances.
S2 SPOILER ALERT Louis’ perspective vastly changes throughout the entire series of interview with vampire season one and season two. If Louis were to give his recollection of the events of his life and his turning and Lestat after knowing he had saved him, after realizing Armand lied to him, and after accepting Claudia was a mistake, I think we would’ve gotten a very different display, but at the end of the day he told the story and recalled the events before he had that epiphany and a more holistic understanding of the events of his life. It was the retelling itself that led to this awakening. I honestly don’t mind the complexity of Lestat displayed. While yes, it deviates from the books, I think it works. The intensity of a toxic relationship is excellently displayed. As a person who has been in emotionally manipulative relationships, I thought it was very accurate how on one hand, you are charmed by their power, exciting personality and good looks, but on the other hand, they are cruel, narcissistic and inconsistent with their love. You keep falling in again and again and you physically cannot leave because of the biochemistry of it all. I want to see various stories, themes, etc. Even if trauma is involved. I don’t want a bunch of white washing or purification. Yes, it’s uncomfortable to watch white on black violence. But I want to hear Louis’ truth. POCS and gays are not babies who need to be protected and shielded from the reality of marginalization and violence. WE KNOW. Some of us have lived it. But I want to see this Louis’ story unbiased and unchanged and come to my own conclusion about what it all means. Watching him evolve through grief, trauma and other horrible events to find personal growth is relevant to all of us. When people are uncomfortable seeing some of this stuff, it just speaks to where they are mentally and emotionally based on THEIR own baggage distorting their understanding of the world. I don’t think the creative changes are the problem. I don’t think the story should be change into something simply because people are uncomfortable looking at it. As a writer myself, the story writes itself through me. It’s simply my job to manifest it as a piece of work. A persons life experiences are what they are, regardless of if they are upsetting or not. I really believe we should treat characters the same way, actualize them, and not have an overly woke mentality about them, censoring the truth of their reality simply because it’s uncomfortable for us to hold space for it. I mean for crying out loud, it’s horror. It’s not supposed to be easy to watch. If you want rainbows and cupcakes Lestat, then go read a fanfiction. At the end of the day, they aren’t human. They are bloodsucking spawns of a demon. It’s supposed to be ugly and terrible. People are losing sight of the reality that these are wild animals who eat people. Why are you surprised that they would beat each other up? Animals are not bound to moral complications like humans are. They simply act on their impulses. I agree that Claudia’s SA was unnecessary. It added nothing to the story. That’s the one thing I hate about this show. Tbh I think the writers just couldn’t think of another way to make her interesting since she had already killed her human friend. Also, when Lestat makes fun of her for it, that “was in very poor taste.” I think on one hand, we could consider the time period in which it happened and how no one had an understanding of mental health. But also that it’s coming from Louis’s recollection through Claudia’s retelling. Who knows how it actually went down. But yes. There are tons of tired tropes, stereotypes and racist/misogynist stories. This show really does show a more nuanced angle to Louis that I appreciate. It made a whole bunch of people interested in a genre they might’ve never been otherwise. Imo, we really have to weigh the benefits against the harms.
On the one hand, the hints and setup are all over the place that Lestat's character assassination is the result of an unreliable narrative...but they've certainly made a confused mess of things in the process.
I’d say to just give the show until they get to adapting TVL if everything goes as planned. The original book didn’t paint Lestat in that positive of a light (albeit still in sympathetic) in my opinion and with the intent in mind of him being extremely morally dubious and arguably emotionally abusive.
When I first saw the 90s Interview with the Vampire, I sympathized with Louis' chronic ennui, pitied Lestat's misfortune but admired his zest for life, and respected Claudia for her fierce independence. But as I rewatched it throughout the years I could never shake the feeling that there must have been an ocean between the story Louis recounted and how things really happened during his decades with Lestat. I never got any joie de vivre or even sardonic quips from Louis that made me think he would find joy with any partner, so I know Lestat's patience must've been exhausted living with Louis while providing him comfort. I thought, 'Louis, but why did you stay when there was nothing left to gain from Lestat if he was so insufferable?' Lestat chose Louis, but did Louis withhold his affections as his leverage over Lestat instead of deliberately not choosing Lestat? Now, having watched season 2, hindsight is definitely 20/20. Whew! One thing I really appreciate about the series is the theme of "memory vs truth". I'm viewing the series in that frame. Louis and Lestat's characters are much richer, not so much for the sake of likeability, but there are deliberate contradictions needed to allow the audience to get to certain revelations.
Lestat brutally reminding us that he’s still a fucking monster was my favorite scene ! literally my favorite character long live episode 5 he’s the type of character you love to hate and watching him get what he deserves at the end was so fun
Really great video essay! I watched this show last year without having read the novels, and for me personally I felt Lestat’s character was fairly well executed and while the DV scene was brutal, it didn’t feel completely out of left field as a viewer with no knowledge of the books. Although you brought up some very good points which make me want to go back and read the books and watch the 90s movie.
I am responding to your Lestat section at the time of my listening to it. I think the reason Lestat is so vile is because it's taken from Claudia's perspective and I believe Armand is manipulating Louis to believe that version of things. I think that Lestat's true nature will be revealed in a later season, sort of like it is in the books. Also, I think the audience is humanizing the relationship between 3 serial killers a bit much. As you pointed out Lestat says to Louis that he is trying to restrain himself and whatever action Louis takes that puts Lestat over the edge happens off-screen. The time compression plays a role here, in the book it's like 70 years before Claudia makes a move against Lestat. It's 3 full grown adults having a fight that gets out of hand in spite of their physical attributes. They never got that physical in the books and I can understand all the points of the fans who were shocked by the scenes in Episode 5, but as I theorized I think it's partially false.
Speaking of Paul, I've felt for some time that the actor playing him, has not had enough recognition. His name is Steven G. Norfleet and he has played at least as much as the other secondary characters, yet has been disappeared. The dinner verbal exchange, the tap dance, the rooftop . . . etc.
I’m sorry, but how is not normal for someone who is previously shown as extremely violent to others, possessive and jealous of Louis from his own family, flings and priest, and extremely old powerful vampire to not get to a breaking point to abuse their partner when that partner wants to leave??? Let’s be real, it’s what abusers do and most of the time, spouses usually excuse them as long as they’re not at the end of the abuse but it always ends in that way.
I'm only 30 minutes into this so I'm sorry but I have to disagree. This lestat is.... better than the books. I'm sure many will disagree, that's fine. But I can't stand Anne Rice's writing style - I had to stop reading after the third book. That may inform my opinion here. I could not STAND Lestat in the books. I was shouting at my paperback half the time - i wanted to strangle that narcissistic POS. It just read as smarmy and I wanted to attack him like a wild chimpanzee - and maybe it's worth a reread now, because at the time, this all felt entirely unintentional. It was FEELING like Anne Rice was trying to make me like him and find him charming - I couldn't stomach it. The new adaption is cathartic for me. Is Lestat abusive? Yes. Is he charming? Yes. Narcissistic? Smarmy? All of the bad things I thought about him on reading IWTV/TVL/QOTD? Yes, yes, and yes. But now I have permission to hate him, and therefore, ironically, permission to LOOOOVE him because of the acknowledgment of his flaws and personal flavor of crazy. Reading the books, it felt like I was going insane. "How could anyone like this guy? Everyone in the fandom loves him! What on earth...? Am I supposed to find him suave for waking up from near-death and immediately joining a rock band? WHAT IS GOING ONNNN" But with the acknowledgement that he is, in fact, a vain stupid abusive bastard that oozes charisma out of every pore, I look at that nugget of information and can go, "oh my god, Lestat would TOTALLY do that, that's brilliant, that's SOOOO HIM! HAH!" and laugh about it, and enjoy him. It elevates the character for me. IDK.
It's been a while, but I do seem to recall the lines that Lestat would or wouldn't cross in the books shifting sometimes-depending on his mood/temper/other-extenuating-factors/etcetera, and or depending upon which point in his character development/journey or whatever he was at or not exactly. Like, I seem to recall him deciding at certain points to try and stop doing certain things that he had done previously-or deciding to actually throw up his hands and not give a rip anymore and actually DO certain things that he previously wouldn't have. (Both good things and bad things, depending on the incident.) And one could say that this scene is not necessarily that far departed in some ways from what Lestat does in the books later on to David, a character that he supposedly also loved at least to some extent or another. But, honestly, maybe it really was just that they didn't want what Louis and Claudia did to have been that much worse than anything that Lestat had done. Even if they hadn't shown us glimpses of Lestat's backstory and such that we didn't get in the books until book two or later. Maybe they didn't want Lestat to have to forgive Louis for anything any more horrible than Louis would need to forgive Lestat for. Who knows. And, while it is true that abuse is still abuse even between two vampires, it is also true that the implications are not necessarily the same if you know that what you're doing can't kill them versus if you simply don't care whether what you're doing might/could kill them or not(still horrible, yes, but slightly differently)-AND it is also true that vampires who are hundreds of years old are capable of doing truly devastating/destructive things with much less intentional effort than a human would be capable of, it's kind of like how easily a small child could seriously injure or even kill a tiny kitten even without any deliberately malicious intent behind their actions at all, nevermind if they actually lost control of themselves because something triggered an intense motion they weren't particularly great at self-regulating yet or whatever. (However, Lestat's actions in the tv series certainly do cross the line on that much more than say Edward Cullen's actions during Bella's birthday party, where Edward tries to push Bella out of harm's way but accidentally uses too much of his inhuman strength without realizing it and sends her flying across the room way further than he intended to.) But, honestly, why is it more horrible that Louis(or the audience) should have to overlook or forgive Lestat doing these horrible things specifically to him personally than it is for Louis to need to forgive or overlook Lestat doing these horrible things to other characters? That's a pretty slippery slippery line to tread, I think. Even with the books, there are many readers who find Lestat unforgivable, even after learning all the internal thoughts/motivations and backstory that Louis didn't have in the first book. Everybody has their own lines across which a character becomes too unlikable, and that's fine. But, morally speaking, I don't think it's worse for Lestat to be domestically violent than it is for Lestat to be a brutal murderer and/or a sadistic torturer-and letting letting characters be horrible to everyone and anyone else except their love interest can foster toxic real life mindsets where people will stay with and/or protect someone as long as that person only does terrible things to other people and never to their partner, as if that makes it any less terrible. As long as they actually show Lestat self-reflecting and genuinely remorseful and actively making efforts to change his behavior in the future so that he legitimately betters himself and isn't still behaving that horribly later on in the story(like if we make it to events later in the series than Louis' interview) I don't mind it-although I also really can't blame anyone who does mind it either. But that's just me, I guess.
i’d love to hear your thoughts on season 2!! i think it did a lot better of a job at hammering out the whole unreliable narrator/memory issues that you mention at the beginning of the video also you’re 100% correct jacob anderson is a gift to this world, lestat and armand are completely justified bc if i was faced with his helen of troy beauty i would also commit unspeakable acts of service to him
after loving the series for so long, the incident of episode 5 was not at all out of left field, in my opinion. he has always been this unpredictable, yet seductive, loveable yet hateable freak! must we forget that the one of the very first things he did after becoming a vampire in the book was go on a little massacre, just for funsies? and i agree with what a lot of other people are saying- you cannot remove the abuser’s humanity. its more dangerous to portray the abuse as something you see coming, that the abuser cannot have multitudes and sympathetic moments. because people are just complicated. an abuser is not someone lurking in the shadows, plotting horrific acts of malice towards their victims. as sam reid describes in one interview, lestat is not *intending* to become this monster who beats his lovers. he is an incredibly emotional vampire with explosive rage, and the decisions he makes never gets him what he wants- which is to be loved. a lot of abusers are like that too. btw im not trying to be a lestat apologist or whatever, dude is a terrible person and deserved everything that happened to him in that last episode. claudia deserved to torture him a little more before he died, if not for her then for revenge for louis. i still love lestat, in all of his horrible evil disgustingness. i would thank him for punching a huge hole through my skull like he did to that priest
I disagree totally about Lestat. I loved the changes to him and think his adaptation was the best part of the series. The entire thing makes much more sense this way. I think it works much better overall.
I also think that, since it was told from Louis and Claudia's perspectives, it was very exaggerated and going forward they may tell the same story from lestats perspective. Keep in mind they've made multiple references to the fact that Louis consistently editorializes whether intentionally or not. They've explained very in depth about how memory is a fickle thing and shit gets twisted very easily, exaggerated. Louis has proven himself to be a flawed witness multiple times throughout the series and they drove tht point home very hard in the last episode. So this adaptation may or may not be a showcase of the entire story going forward
This might be one of my favourite adaptation attempts ever. It genuinely feels like the show is required reading in order to fully understand this story. Like, we got louis’ version of the story in the first book, lestat’s in the second, the movie adapts the original interview in San Francisco and then the show continues in from there, unravelling the story from a new perspective. I guess it’s cause it doesn’t feel like an adaptation as much as it feels like a continuation of the narrative. Having watched the movie, then started reading the book at the same time as I watched the show, they complement each other perfectly and I feel like I wouldn’t have as full an understanding of the entire story here as I do if I hadn’t watched/read everything. Taken all together the show, movie and book paint a full picture
One little thing, Anne Rice change her attitudes about her vampires when Charlaine Harris books and later adaptation True Blood become popular, is an irony seeing that Harris books are mostly based on Anne Rice books, her vampires continue to be asexual, but their sex stopped being metaphorical, but gradually become literal, hell, in her last book, The Prince Lestat, Lestat not only had sex with a woman, but also had a child with her.
I am a fan of the show and I didn't read the book (it is on my TBR). Thanks so much for this video as it has given me some insights and context into the show that I didn't have beforehand! Your video was very engaging and the 40 minutes flew by. Looking forward to a future video about Season 2, if there is one.
Being from a family, which has had it's ups and downs with abuse,... That Lestat vs. Louis fight, really shook me up !!!! I will continue to watch though..❤
This is a cool adaptation and I’m glad you walked me through it so I can just jump in to S2! Now I can appreciate the changes and watch with an open mind!
as someone who hasn’t watched the show but who is a major fan of the books i think your analysis of lestat really hits the nail on the head - especially with what you’ve said/what i’ve heard of him in the show. the lestat we see in interview is fundamentally different from the lestat we see in the vampire lestat/queen of the damned/etc. because of who’s perspective the story is from. interview is from louis’ perspective - it’s his story, his recollection of events, his perception of how lestat is/was during that time period, while tvl and qotd are written by lestat - so the version of him we see is completely different. we know that both louis and lestat are (in the novels) extremely unreliable narrators (lestat’s criticisms of louis’ retelling of events in the beginning of tvl is a pretty big example) and we also know that lestat is kind of in love with himself (think the opening paragraph of tvl or that one line in qotd where he says that he promises he’s not making it up when people say that they love him/think he’s beautiful he just knows it due to “infallible psychic power”) so the differences between these versions of lestat - while also probably being somewhat merited to anne rice simply changing the character as the series went on - can also be assigned to the fact that what louis and lestat say just can’t be taken at face value. again, i haven’t watched the show so i’m not 100% sure how well this is reflected in the adaptation (i’m just going off what has been said in this video and what i’ve heard from other fans) but the ideas of blending the lestat from the later books in the series with the lestat of iwtv just…isn’t a good idea because they’re so different from one another due to the different perspectives in the books. if you go with the “truth” of the brat prince from the rest of the vampire chronicles you miss a hugely important part of iwtv but if you stick entirely to lestat from iwtv you have to completely forego that different characterisation from the later books. i think the different characterisation might also be somewhat attributed to lestat’s resting underground for a couple decades/centuries thing so when he wakes up in tvl he’s got a much fresher perspective/zeal/whatever and thus acts a bit differently but that’s probably a whole separate rant :P anyways, thank you so much for this video! it was great!
I really love watching sober points of view of the show, louis is a character that for me only grows in the show but its one who takes the greatest negative criticism. and I understand the point about lestat. particularly one of the things that captivated me in the show was his unpredictability, he's the horror that sustains the dynamics of the story, someone I would love to know the origin of.
I have always been a Louis stan and I really enjoyed Jacob Anderson's performance. Apparently subsequent seasons will start to explore Lestat's backstory which is exciting!
I have to preface this with saying that I have never read the books but I understand the profound love the fan base has for the books and understand the base storyline. I wish the interaction with killer was framed more as her realizing that despite Lestat being cruel to her, Louis was there to protect her. There was a buffer, a safety net. I would have been fine in writing and having the scene framed that way (even rewriting it to have Claudia be smarter and escape killer which would foreshadow her taking down Lestat). I also wonder after the reveal of Armand and how jailed Louis is by him, if Armand hasn’t influenced Louis’ memory as well. I am have no doubt that Lestat was toxic and emotionally abusive to Louis or that there probably was a “fight” of some kind; but, the writers have set a precedent of unreliable narrators.
11:31 Honestly, I don’t feel the references to the old interview is an attempt at retconning. As someone unfamiliar with the material, it only appeared to be a nod to theme of memory and also creating conflict between Louie and the interviewer-whether or not he is a reliable narrator. Creates a mission for the interviewer to push him on the truth
I love both adaptations actually. And in both, Lestat is my favourite. And even though the fight/abuse scene is horrific, and wasn't like that in the book, it doesn't come totally out of thin air. But I don't see the context as "White man beating up black man." I see the context as "domestic violence." And does it really come so farfetched for Lestat to be unhinged after what he's been through? I mean, read the books. Spoiler ahead... spoiler He was abused as a child after he wanted to join the church and his father wouldn't let him and would have him beat up mercilessly to "kick the idea out of him" basically. Then he was beat up again after he ran away with gipsies and then, when he's finally finding the love of his life, he's abducted by a vampire who locks him up with dead bodies. He doesn't give him a choice in becoming a vampire and then is like "goodluck sucker, bye!" He's stumbling in the dark with way more power than he knows what to do with. The one person who he loves more than anything whithers away with sickness and when she's a vampire she goes away from him again. So when he has Louis and Claudia he makes sure he never tells them all the secrets of vampiricy because then they would no longer need him and leave him because the only way he knows love is being a dick...apparantly...
The only person who ever put a gun to my head (outside Army war games) was a rich, white guy I made the mistake of dating. But it was my Black dad that I saw in Lestat: beauty, fashion, wit; a fire that all the moths flutter around before he selects whom to cut dead with his blistering put-downs. Bad guys come in all colors. At least this one is enjoyable at the safe distance of a TV screen. Great summary (psst! Better than "Maven" constantly picking nits)!
I interpret the fight (or beat down as it was presented in S1E5) as a damaged abuser doing the last thing he can think to do to keep his partner and child from running to Europe on a mission that is sure to end in their demise… when transparency and truthfulness would have sufficed. He really could have just told Claudia, especially, about the dangers she’d face from the old world vampires instead of just using it as an unexplained jab said in anger.
Duh Lestat IS A BIG OL’ MESS. SHE’S A MESSY QUEEN. She is complicated and sassy and an overt narcissist monster that not just emotionally abusive but also physically. Entirely passionate in a good and bad way. I think Sam did a great job with the writing. The only thing I saw that was a negative was his mumbled French. I have french friends that DID NOT like his French but liked the character. … Tom Cruise wasn’t the greatest version of Lestat - I saw no extremes with him passionate lover of Louis nor the tempestuous rage, nor was he gay enough. It really felt like the movie studio filtered or censored Rice’s true story of Lestat. God forbid anyone or vampire characters could be ghey or omni sexual.
A really good essay, I'm glad to see more discussion of this show! (especially ones like this, that feel nuanced and thoughtful). Considering Lestat, I had this initial idea that the intent of the show is still to portray Louis as an unreliable narrator (as in the book), in that he's telling "the truth" this time around, which means his version of Lestat retains some of the traits he has in the later books. But then still has to also justify to himself why he had to attempt to get rid of him, and went overboard (there's also the whole thing with Armand and how his influence might factor into the story...). I agree with you and others that the violence was overt and absolutely horrifying, so I wonder if the events depicted are what really happened, or just what Louis told Daniel - who constantly seems to be picking apart this new version of events - happened. Which to me feels like an attempt to make the audience question Louis' honesty (I laughed out loud about your comment of Louis looking like he's being held at gunpoint). I guess this would explain why Lestat's characterisation is such a mess. Retconning would be in the spirit of the source material! 😅 But most likely I'm just reaching and what we saw was exactly what happened, if the creators even made a point of addressing the fact that the abuse was shown from Claudia's point of view, as you said here. I'm not really familiar at all about behind the scenes interviews and such, so maybe there's more that I'm unaware of. It's just kind of disappointing since they managed to balance a lot of the other things so well even with the changes. I guess we'll see how things pan out in season 2. Anyway, subscribed and hoping to see more long videos from you!
Thank you so much for your kind words. I definitely agree with your points about the show potentially framing Louis as an unreliable narrator. I’m curious to see where they take that in S2.
In Anne's defense and the adaptation that AMC is doing for its portrayal of the character Lestat is that Anne's inspiration for Lestat was her husband, Stan. I don't think she knew when she was writing about Lestat in her first book it was and I honestly can't say that Stan was abusive towards her in their marriage. I'd like to believe that it wasn't as in her subsequent books, she portrayed Lestat in a better light. She did finally reveal that part of her inspiration for Lestat was from her husband after he died. The Lestat that AMC is showing removes that sentimentality to show the monsters that all vampires are. Louis is no exception in this series. He threatened to kill his own brother even /before/ he was turned by Lestat. These aren't Anne's monsters, their AMC's take on these characters without the sentimentalisation that a creator has for her creations.
I would argue that it isn't just that Louis suddenly starts to feel guilty that Lestat kills that one random opera singer....it's the fact that Louis is slowly realizing that Lestat isn't just killing because they're vampires who need blood to survive, Louis is slowly realizing that Lestat doesn't just kill this guy but is slowly and agonizingly TORTURING this guy over a very lengthy extended amount of time *_and_* Lestat is literally delighting in doing it. It isn't the fact that Lestat kills a humanbeing that becomes too much for Louis to tolerate, it's the fact that Lestat is ENJOYING causing unnecessary suffering and terror and pain while killing people which begins to turn Louis' stomach.
I think for what the show was and lestat was for me Episode five works a little more than I think people would like but then that also makes me more sympathetic to Louis and Claudia at the end and for lestats death (almost) that is a big lightbulb moment for him that he’s got to change and that when we will be seeing the better lestat
I'm still at the beginning of watching your essay, but off top, I wanna give you kudos for linking to other vloggers videos interpreting and dissecting this work, particularly when it comes to expertise and experiences you might lack. I hope you inspire more creators to do so.
I have never read Anne Rice's books. I saw IWTV 1994 & it was a neat film. I happened to see this reimagining on AMC +, so I decided to watch. I love supernatural thrillers/ Horror genre, so this piqued my interest. So, I'm a Cis Gay POC Man watching this show with no real frame of reference other than the 1994 film I saw in the early 00s. I also grew up in an overly religious, and emotionally/physically abusive home. There is a lot in this show that has been well done. I do see some plot beats that got muddled but I do enjoy it. Especially with how queer it is. For me I love Louis as a character, and I'm really enjoying Lestat. I don't know much about Lestat's future in the Vampire Chronicles, I feel a lot of people are frustrated with Lestat being an abuser in this iteration. Here is where I am at. The fight scene from Claudia's perspective. DAMN THAT GAVE ME FLASH BACKS, as a 5-year-old watching my parents fights using pans, punching each other. Claudia being in the corner, made me feel helpless like I was as a child watching glass break, walls being punched, and my mother being thrown against objects. That was a really tough scene to watch. But it was accurate of how it feels. The apology scenes were on point. The "Thats not who I want to be anymore line". Textbook abuser language. I personally don't think they should shy away from the subject. I think Lestat has a lot of character development and growth and def needs a redemption arc if he is the hero of the Vampire Chronicles from what it sounds like he is. However, it needs to be done tastefully. I also don't think Louis or Lestat should have any form of reconciliation or relationship after the fact. (I don't know story beats after IWTV so not sure if they do.) In this adaptation I don't think they should, or it has a bad connotation to it. From the looks of it Armand or Rashid I guess really care for Louis. Lets just hope it isn't a situation where Louis in the future of the show is having to pick between Lestat and his new partner.
I thought you were talking the books. Because Lestat right out tells the reader he's Queer or Bi. "I've always been a lover of men & women. He' definitely proved that... Straight up blood ho😂😂!!! Good thing vamos don't catch communicable diseases because he'd have problem....
As someone who just so far watched the movie and the show, that fight scene did made very uncomfortable, sad and disturbed, but at same time I felt like it made sense for that Lestat. He's absolutely awful and has a deeply fear to be abandoned for those that he loves (for me it's only Louis that he loves tbh, as I feel like he only goes out of his away to avoid her flee is because he knew that without her he would lose Louis for good eventually), and reacts to that fear in the worst possible way. I feel like he also doesn't quite know what to do on a relationship- and to that I honestly can relate, even if I ain't toxic and manipulative as him. So anyway, I hate and love Lestat. I hate him because he's awful, and I love him for the same reason. I still feel like I'll never watch that fight scene without feeling horrible, but I was strangely happy that Louis didn't killed him on the show as well. Also I watched it with some friends, and we'd joke that we also ended up on a toxic relationship with Lestat at the end of the season- and I feel like I honestly can't disagree, unfortunately- and that video of James Somerton actually sumarizes how I felt, it's really really good. And before anyone calls me out, I don't excuse any of Lestat's actions. He seems to be traumatized himself, but his actions are just really horrible anyway. He's indeed a lot, a mess, a piece of work too far from finished. One that I'm kinda vibrating to see where they will lead to- can't wait to cry my ass again for this awfully narcissist and possessive vampire and the consequences of his actions on the lives of those that he loves. yipee
🧐 I love this series and the changes from the book New Orleans cinematography is so sensual and vibrant. The history of Storyville is fascinating. 🥵 The sexual chemistry between Louis and Lestat is hotter than this summer.🔥🔥 I wanted more scenes of Louis family and his Vampire family dealing with each other 😮 😬 Claudia from episodes 4 to 7 emotional transformation had me awestruck🎉🎉 🏆 I have watched these 7 episodes so many times and still can't stop watching them 🤩🥰
I liked the different take on the characters. As a vampire lover,I never see them as having human sexuality. They're just lustful beings imo. Like how it was portrayed in True Blood. No boxes,they just are. Using racial change (which I'm usually not a fan of and I'm melanated btw) made it more complex and the story not so simple, especially during the era. Thinking too deeply about his profession is crazy, that was a common thing in those days and very on brand. Even using the creole factor, which is more important than ppl may really understand. Making the girl older allowed more room that you can't do with a 5 yr old . I watched it for what it was, didn't get into all the nuance of boxes check. Looking forward to season 2. Nice review!
In reference to your point about Lestat, I feel that a character capable to rape (in one of the later books where the text is from Lestat’s pov) is one who can commit physical violence (as in this series). Both are unforgivable and equally heinous acts IMO so I wonder whether this footprint gave the writers reason to justify Lestat’s ability to commit DV. The vampiric power potential then makes the degree of violence extremely painful to watch. As some commenters have stated, I suspect that there will be some narrative correction of the events seen in this season in later seasons due to the POV aspect of this season and the ‘odyssey of recollection!
Hi. Since you like Jacob Anderson's voice, you'd probably like to listen to his songs. He uses the name Raleigh Ritchie. I love the songs " werld is mine", "bloodsport", "keep it simple","time in a tree", well I think l am already a fan😉
Same. There are so many naysayers saying show Louis is too different and I’m like, we’re you really a Louis fan? Because I’ve loved him since I was 9 and I adore every version!
As someone from Louisiana, the ‘at this point how hasn’t anyone noticed the unusually high murder rate in New Orleans’ bit made me LAUGH Girl, Nawlins is just LIKE THAT 🤷🏻♀️
Note: Someone correctly pointed out that at (20:25) I referred to a character as “one of the other Azalea players.” That was an oversight on my part and I apologize. The character, as portrayed by Kyle Roussel, was the real-life jazz musician Ferdinand Jospeh LaMothe/Lemott/LaMenthe (aka Jelly Roll Morton). An important figure in the genre’s history, I have included relevant links about him in the description section for the video.
Additional Note: Sorry for the James Somerton mention. I know it has not aged well. Please however consider checking out the other creators I mention!
I will say, Sam Reid tackles the brat prince part of Lestat perfectly. Right on down to the dramatic strut he does, like the world is his personal runway and he's a top model.
😅
I agree that Lestat is abusive to Claudia and Louis. I disagree that it was a bad choice narratively. Sometimes intense and consuming relationships are also abusive ones. In this adaptation, Lestat is an abuser. He feels like he needs to be stronger than those closest to him in order to stop them from leaving him. He uses that strength to enforce a corrosive intimacy. I see this as very human. Terrible. Broken. But very human. The evil that is this Lestat is not a eldritch evil its an essentially human one. I hope that if they try to redeem this Lestat it comes first as he finally recognizes the harm he has done to those he should love best, that he can never change what he has done, that they are not obligated to forgive him, but that he can try to change his behavior in the future.
Honestly the shock about this just says the people shocked have not actually enjoyed much gothic horror NOR have they faced (or at least accepted that they've faced) much toxic relationship abuse. The latter is of course a great thing, like in real life, but you're so right about the storytelling here actually working well.
That fight took my breath away honestly, and with most of if being shown through Claudia’s POV and seeing her react to the chaos around her in a very human way just maximised the realisation that Lestat is an incredibly broken and destructive person, but one that also has near god like powers and how terrifying that is as a concept. I will say, if anyone of the BIPOC community has an issue with the way that fight was shown I will absolutely listen, but just for me watching I wasn’t thinking about Louis as a black person in that moment as I had in the scenes where his race actively affected his story, I just saw him as a father trying to protect his daughter while being unable to tell his husband he doesn’t love him because he loves Lestat enough that he can’t lie, but he doesn’t want to break Lestat’s heart further by telling him the truth 💔 it occurred to me recently a lot of vampire romances reference Wuthering Heights but very few have the toxicity and the misery that I associate with the central relationship in that book but this show really went all in on that aspect and I love it 🤌
As a poc person I don't really took the scene as the racial imbalance of power, but as a classic case of abusive relationship that comes to the bottom, and that unfortunately happens in real life and i agree that's very human, a horrible part of being human, Lestat is not a character that's built to be tolerated. And I also think that as far as I liked Lestat in Ep3, I think that make him a likeble person would take out the weight of his death scene, it was a relief to me actually, after everything they are finally free and I think it's pretty well done, and I agree that they had to sacrifice our empathy for Lestat to make this happens but I think that's something you can give back to him in later seasons, not to redeem him as a abuser, but to show the consequences for him and how it could change it in later life.
He's not that abusive, claudia and louie hated him and plotted against him. Lestat would have been fine with both if claudia wasn't such a horrible twat and louie stopped getting his panties in a twist over her.
@@rebecaalves3280 Also, I can see why some of Lestat's qualities, like his appreciation for humanity or his choice to only kill evil doers is not present here. In a scenario where Louis is a person restrained by his family, his position as a black man and his shame with his own sexuality, it makes sense for Lestat to be a man who sees humanity as a set of limitations, serving the antithesis to Louis' restraints by being a hedonistic, unapologetic vampire. Lestat offers Louis absolute freedom and I think it wouldn't be as effective if Lestat wasn't the way he is in this adaptation
(I also I think there is little room for human admiration in this series since the main characters are amidst a bunch of rich, racist white people)
Someone saying Lestat and Louis fighting then referencing it as just "a gay black man being beaten up by a white man" scenario is literal injustice to not only the abusive relationship they've been written and described having for literal decades but also them as a character. Louis isn't just "a gay black man", he is a black, gay man who was not-so-consensually turned into a vampire who has been involved in a tug & pull relationship with his maker ( super toxic and traumatized man btw )who is a much older vampire, privileged in knowledge, strength and in skin tone that behaves just as emotionally as Louis. Like, of course he's not going to be a good person. Yes, of course he's MESSY. Of COURSE their toxic relationship was going to show the bad AND the good. It's just that their version of bad days is a violence that is so supernaturally unhinged and raw, of course we'd feel wildly uncomfortable witnessing it.
He is a vampire. He is undead. He hasn't been human for centuries already. I don't know what people expect and if at all, this fight was pretty tame to how bad things could've been. Having undead creatures who murder people (sometimes for fun) coming home, cuddling on the couch or having romcom arguments about forgetting their 1000th anniversary like it's a normal Tuesday is just not realistic. Does it sound entertaining? Of course it does but that's what this show was going to be about, it also wasn't what Rice's texts were about either.
Sam Reid as Lestat is the embodiment of a hyper sexual, spoil brat, supermodel prince with serious anger issues and wit for miles and Im here for all of it.
I’m sorry, THIS IS HOW I FIND OUT THAT MORBIUS ACTUALLY SAYS “IT’S MORBIN TIME”??? I THOUGHT THAT WAS A JOKE!!
It’s not real 😂
@@eileensnow6153aw lmaoo
That was cgi’d by some brilliant net denizen. It is so perfect but is, in fact, not actually from the movie. AI is a helluva drug.
@@kimberleywilliams7802 do you always just make shit up lol
@@kimberleywilliams7802that never happened💀💀💀💀
The perspective a lot of fans have on Lestat is really wild to me given that he fed on slaves in the first book. His domestic abuse switch up makes perfect sense to me. Rereading the first book last year I saw a much older man prey on a vulnerable younger man. I saw a man who tossed aside his husband once he was bored of him and chased other men and women as entertainment. Jealous possessive Lestat has always been there infront of us. Lestat turned a toddler into a vampire to baby trap the young grieving man he had a toxic relationship with, in book. The show is playing off that. There's nothing sympathetic about Lestat to my nearly 30 year old mind rereading the first book. He had a sad start. Most abusers do. Lestat only toes lines he wants to toe.
I also thought that the characterization of Lestat between the two books was very different since Louis’s recollections of Lestat made him seem more like an ass. TVL though presents a more nuanced character that has more of the loving side of Louis’ recollections and less of the monster.
Much older man? Isn't their age difference in the books like six years? Lestat was turned when he was 20, then he was a vampire for ten years before travelling to America where he met and turned Louis who was 24-ish at the time. I agree with your view on his character though.
Okay because I never get why people say the ep 5 doesn’t make any sense when actually does. Lestat showed multiple times how abusive he was. Regardless if it was emotionally, psychologically, mentally, etc. He even told Louis he was restraining himself a lot while together.
Having read the entire series, the picture of Lestat gets a bit muddier. Louis almost certainly lied about a lot of things Lestat did--you have to remember this interview was before their reconciliation and Louis definitely holds many grudges, and it's possible he was trying to provoke some interaction with Lestat. And in the second book Lestat almost certainly lies about how innocent he was too, claiming he only ever feeds from 'evildoers' and knows they are such because he can read their minds; a claim that even he can't keep up with for the entire text since he doesn't always stick to this rule. Things become clearer later on when you see a lot of the individuals who know them both and comb through their history and some of the books taking a 3rd person perspective. But still, the truth is extremely obscured between Lestat's lies about himself, how people feel about him, and the vampiric urges of pretty much any narrators who interacted with him.
Lestat is a complicated person, and no doubt damaged. Past rejection makes him so jealous and clinging that he turns himself into a monster. He's also absolutely an abuser, who tried to trap Louis, and later, as he grew to like her, Claudia. But let's not forget that Louis and Claudia are every bit like him. Louis is described by Akasha as having killed "without regard for age or sex or will to live". Claudia is canonically almost exactly like Lestat, trying to trap Louis first through guilt then attempting to replace him by forcing him to turn Madeleine with that same guilt. She kills indiscriminately and is claimed to drink far more than Lestat or Louis. I'm not excusing Lestat here, on the contrary I'm trying to show that every vampire in this series is a fucked up, damaged person who does horrible things to random innocent people and even more-so to those that are actually in their (un)lives.
@@kragary Yeah, they're only 6 years apart in age.
i know this is just a difference of opinion and im not the first to say it, but Lestat's character in the books (which i am a HUGE fan of and have been since i was 14) has always read as that of a domestic abuser to me. Abusers can be nuanced characters because in real life abusers are still people. He isnt a "psychopath", and pathologizing abuse isn't always helpful or accurate. the first half of the IWTV book has always read to me as a story of someone escaping an abusive relationship. It might just depend on which version of his characterization one is more attached to, since it changes so much in the books, but this felt perfectly in character to me. You can be sympathetic to his situation while still recognizing his canon book actions for what they were: abusive. You're right that in the book it wasn't physically abusive, mostly emotionally abusive, but it genuinely doesn't seem like that much of a leap to me. It's just the show doing what it has done in other areas as well: taking subtext and making it more explicit.
also, on the point of his character seeming messy because he has to be evil but seductive at the same time. anyone who has ever been in an abusive relationship will tell you that abusers ARE seductive and ARE charming and can have moments of real loving kindness. Otherwise, why would people be in those relationships in the first place? The emotional whiplash and not knowing what the reaction could be; the feeling of a roulette where you don't know if you're going to get the loving partner or the monster; thats where a lot of the trauma comes from, just as much as from the acts of violence themselves.
I definitely respect mixed feelings on whether this is a good or accurate representation of Lestat's book characterization, but it is 100% a cohesive characterization on its own to me.
Thank you for your feedback. In retrospect “psychopath” was probably not the best term to use and I certainly don’t want to perpetuate harmful stereotypes as it pertains to pathologizing abuse. I will try to be more careful in the future.
I think it depends on what you mean by abuse. He certainly is a narcissist and manipulative, but he rarely acts out of malice in the books. In fact from his POV, he's usually trying to do what *he* thinks is in everyone's best interests, unless he's lashing out emotionally. He's so emotional in fact that he can never have good judgement. I think this is why Louis is able to love him despite everything.
Narcissists can suck the life out of everyone around them whether they're trying to or not, but I'd still distinguish between deliberate and non-deliberate abuse.
@@vanyadolly for the abused, whether hurt was the core intent means nothing. Very frequently it isn't - not to the abuser, because like you say, a lot of abuse comes from incredible emotional volatility. It's not so much a planned cruelty, rather lashing out in a martyr kind of way. It's still abuse.
Not every abuser acts out of conscious malice. How many abusive, both physical and emotional, parents were just trying to "toughen" their kids up, or teach them discipline, or keep them from sinning and burning in hell? @@vanyadolly
@@Ceares Trying to toughen someone up is conscious malice and abuse by definition, whether you have an end goal or not. That's not the argument I'm making and certainly not anything Lestat has done.
I don't think Lestat nearly killing Louis is out of character for him from the books. Remember Claudia telling Louis "he won't let us leave"? Lestat is never violent to Louis in the original novel, but the threat of violence is constantly hanging over their heads.
Apart from the threat of physical abuse, Lestat is an emotional abuser. He forces his own beliefs onto Louis, minimises Louis' thoughts and feelings - it's not in the books, but Lestat calling the interview "whinging, Louis, always whinging" in the film is pretty in character.
Considering his character traits and the fact that the show is really hammering in how vile the European vampires are now w/ season 2 coming out yeahh Lestat is kinda a fucked up lil guy lmao
Lestat, with holds information to Louis to keep him, as a companion and to use his wealth, not sharing history is part of the book's.. Armand telling Louis he's the oldest living Vampire...
Only Marius willingly shares knowledge..
That's the thing though, he was violent to Louis in the 1st book as well. Just not to this caliber. So many people forget that... that he was aggressive towards Louis in the first book. He very much was physically abusive as well. Just not in the way that most people view and consider DV, and it was never to this caliber, nor this intentional. That's why so many book fans get and were so hung up on it being "out of character" for Lestat. People who claim, that he was never aggressive at all, and/or that he never "hurt" Louis, in the books. Just don't remember the 1st book. Which these first two seasons are adaptions of.
I wonder if Lestat's over-the-top awfulness is due to (spoiler alert) a certain disguised character influencing Louis' story through mental manipulation, threats, etc.
Definitely. This was my take after you know who showed up in the last episode. I don't think Lous is a reliable narrator.
Me too!
If they base part 2 in Lestat the Vampire book they can include Lestat's point of view. In the book Lestat says he actually loved Louis and Claudia was their daughter. Louis was like clinically depressed since he was turned and Claudia wanted to see the world but Lestat was afraid other vampires (les théatre de vampires specifically) would harm them. And he was himself also pretty inexperienced as a vampire and his own conversion was pretty traumatic.
He left the “OldWorld “ due to Marius and Akasha .Enkil would kill Lestat.
Lestat never told Louis and Claudia the history cause he was afraid for them .
Ding ding
no adaptation, no matter how faithful to the source matterial, will satisfy everyone. there are going to be people who hate a section, or a character change or even major story changes.
Still the LOTR film trilogy is universally loved, the Harry Potter movies still have big following, Kubrick's The Shining is a cult horror classic even with Stephen King hates it, etc... Is interesting that some adaptations (faithful or not) are beloved by the mainstream audience and others don't have that luck
@@TheHalloweenSpirit Yet the Hobbit is not universally loved and the HP movies are forever tainted by the cursed child and fantastic beasts movie( plus JK Rowling being a total Terf)
idk, I didn't see many complaints about Dune Part 1
@@ianvera4299 So? We pretend they don't exist (not Rowling, she's a real person), much how there is no 3rd Mummy movie.
@@lainiwakura1776 Who is "we" lol? I know many potterheads who want JK gone.
I believe the reason why the writers took the direction in making Lestat worse then book Lestat is to show just how manipulated Louis actually is by (spoiler alert) “the love of his life”. If I remember correctly ‘you know who’ absolutely hated Lestat way before Louis was even in the picture, and now he is twisting Louis memories to make Louis hate Lestat too.
Unless they’ve dramatically warped Armand’s abilities, this is not how his mind gift works at all. He’s a great liar, yes. He can project horrifying images into others minds, yes. He can create false memories and completely warp others personalities and schemas? No, he was absolutely never able to do that in the books and had he been able to, it would have been a VERY different story. I’m sure he has swayed Louis’s bias a bit, definitely in an attempt to keep Louis under his wing, but keep in mind also that this interview has always been represented as a method of character assassination on Louis’s part, intentionally.
@@nataliewohlfert662 It's not out of the question anymore, apparently vampires can be just immune to to the sun if you lived for at least 500 years in this "Immortal Universe".
@@Charolette21 that is actually canonically accurate (even though he’s lying)- their sensitivity lessens the older and more powerful they are. He can’t just hang out in the sun but he’d absolutely be able to walk through it for half of a second relatively unphased. He is on his own 500 years old but he’s also one of the only fledglings of Marius, he wasn’t weak even as a new vampire.
@@nataliewohlfert662 Despite all of that, he still might get more than a few seconds in the sun this time. Every adaptation so far had made vampires so much stronger than their book counterparts, Louis and Claudia can read minds from the jump now.
On the other hand I feel like this kind of takes away from Louis' agency. I mean yes, he's constantly manipulated by both Lestat and Claudia, but a big part of that is because of his own passivity and willingness to go along with whatever's happening rather than taking a stand. He has some accountability in their family unit and isn't just a helpless victim.
Defiantly agree about Claudia's assault and how the show handled it
Yeah, that was the worst choice I think the writers made in an otherwise really good series.
@@AlliWalker absolutely
FYI defiant means disobedient. You mean definitely (def in it) which means absolutely, that you agree.
Yes, people keep praising the show for "representation", and overall I love it, but there are at least three things that this show was terrible at: doing justice to its female characters (save Madeleine, I guess), making a decent attempt at making its French characters sound French, and not portraying Romania as backwards and barbaric...
Controversial or not, for me the show brings something new that's cool, they delve into tropes that work for TV like gore/violence and sex, and a lot of the book works better in the book and visually tends to lose appeal or not translates at all or even it's totally inappropriate now, I really didn't want to see a romanticized plantation owner when society is still trying to rewrite history, that slaves benefited from slavery. I think the series reworks changes well for the most part. it can be appreciated as a third thing of its own within the universe.
Agreed. A romanticized depiction of a slave owner was definitely not needed. I think the changes for Louis' character were really well-done.
They could have kept the timeline still had Louis be black but be the plantation owner. That was definitely a thing so it would have been true to history and the book. I mean why is exploitation of women seen as somehow better. As a black woman I thought it was a silly change.
The acting & settings were beautiful. I'm at least some were done on location. I learned my love of New Orleans from Anne Rice. My ex husband (the first time for & my Mardi Gras) I knew where everything, lots of grast hints for off the beaten path for places to go.
The Mayfair Witches give even MORE - I knew where even MORE places to eat (Out favorite blonde Bombshell doesn't eat ) & go and hear music. It's great she puts them all in there. It's like "20 great things to do in NOLA!!. Id encourage everyone to go. It will change your life.
@@fourizereviews5123 I think you (and """"a lot"""" or aka a vocal minority) live in such weird buble. It's like making a movie set in France during the WWII era but without all the background related to this specific era. Or worse (the thing you advocate) adapting a book based on France WWII era but deciding to change the background because people could say that you are a pro nazi. You do realize how childish and dangerous it is, do you? And this is exactly what you advocate for. You do realize that Michael Fassenbender in 12 Year a slave was not an actual slave holder? Nor was he a racist anti human when he played Magneto. You do realize that erasing content will not erase History, right? Now, and it's even more relevant (according you actually read the book... but the more i read the arguments made by those who love the show, the more i genuinely think a lot of people actually did not!): you do realize that Louis being the owner of a plantation is actually a minor detail in terms of page content in the first book (and i'm not even mentioning the sequels)? Now, because i see you coming, about the "romanticized" argument: you do realize that for a looooot of people in the past, slavery was either: normal, good, bad yet also a trend they just had to deal with, like us with so many things nowadays that will blow the minds of the next centuries' people. So Louis as a plantation slave owner was not "rOmAnticIzEd", it was actually pretty normal. And saying that is not being pro slavery.
It really blows my mind how woke people and their minions can live in such a distant intellectual and emotional reality. Grow up.
Louis is not a romanticized plantation owner. He's an exploitator of human life both as a human, and as a vampire. His privilege and passivity is a central aspect of his character. Personally I have more issues with them rewriting history as "oh, it wasn't so bad to be black after all!"
I have conflicting feelings about the context of episode five, but on the whole I think it works more so than not. I appreciate the premise of your argument regarding the tension between the creators of the show wanting to set Lestat up as the more complex protagonist of the later books and needing him to serve a narrative function in Louis' story. You are absolutely correct, it is messy. But it's messy because Lestat is an eternal enigma. No one can truly know him because of the way Rice's relationship with him as creator evolved over the years, sometimes in contradictory ways. In the novels this unevenness is easier to rationalize because there's a clear correlation between immortality and erratic behavior as sanity erodes. In the adaptations this is much harder to convey because of the constraints of the medium. It can often seem inconsistent because a viewing audience usually isn't afforded the grace of anticipating character shifts in the way a reader is.
So while I see the intent, I struggle with reviews that claim that Lestat isn't acting like Lestat. I don't think anyone knows what it means to be Lestat, not the other vampires around him, and not even he himself at times. We all know certain things about him. His sense of humor, his tastes, some likes and dislikes, his intellect. But the one thing no one in universe or otherwise knows is how to predict what he'll do next. You never know which Lestat you're going to get.
All this to say that I don't believe domestic violence is off the table for him. Any fan of the series will agree that he's capable of cruelty, manipulation, and emotional abuse. Therefore I don't think it's unreasonable to suppose that a being with immense physical prowess and a demonstrably volatile understanding of love would cross the line to domestic violence. Louis believes he would never cross that line because, like many abuse victims, he can't conceptualize the imminent harm he's in the way of until it's too late. I think if the showrunners had approached the vampire as an allegory for grief as you so eloquently put it, then we would see Lestat's abuse of Louis as more psychological like it is in the books. Because grief is a torment of the mind. But the story we were told in the show is one of twisted seduction, so the harm done needs to be tangible, physical, like the core of their attraction. And that can be hard to reconcile with the beautiful Byronic Brat Prince we've come to know.
I do wonder if we hadn't actually seen the fight and it was alluded to gradually throughout the interview and more foreshadowing in Louis' flashbacks then it would've been more palatable. Sometimes seeing the aftermath of a terrible act and being left to come to your own conclusion about what you thought you knew is more nuanced and poignant than witnessing the act itself. I did love Molloy calling Louis' framing of their relationship out. And I'm excited to see how the showrunners and Sam take adapting Lestat further. I think he's great.
Sorry for the essay. I'm enjoying your content!
Beautiful post!
Beautiful response. “Grief is a torment of the mind” 🥹
People, I think you fell in love so hard for Lestat that you ignored that he was ALWAYS a violent and narcissistic character. From the very first moment. I don't understand why you are so shocked about that episode. Even the scene when he turned Louis into a vampire is so violent! Lestat is meant to be a complex character and he is REALLY seductive. But he is violent and toxic.
As someone who watched the series first before watching the movie and is now reading the first book, I’m honestly surprised people were ever charmed by Lestat. I’m sure the character is developed more in later books and all that but from what I saw in the movie and what I’ve read in the first couple chapters, Lestat is an annoying callous freeloader. Sam Reid’s Lestat however is incredibly charming and alluring and lovable in my opinion. In the first episode after he just murdered the priests I found myself, like Louis, somehow completely disarmed and seduced. I kept asking myself “is it bad that I would fall for him too? Because this is working for me.”
@@chrissyb6647agreed, I’m currently reading the books after watching the entire show and in the first book Lestat just sucks lol
I love this adaptation, faults and all. I think Rolin and the cast brought to life Anne Rice's world and reminding old fans like myself why we loved it in the past.
Jacob Anderson and Sam Reid SHINE as the main vampires and seeing them together is like watching a ballet. Baily as Claudia will be greatly missed and older Daniel is KING!!!
This Lestat is the Brat Prince we will come to love AND HATE. He is a brat after all and Sam brings all the nuances to his character.
I cannot wait for season two!!!!!
I feel same way, excellent comment!
Lestat was not unlikeable. I was happy to see him back in season 2
I genuinely appreciated this thorough analysis, and believe it was extremely well done. That being said, it’s exhausting to hear how popular it is to criticize and pretend sexual assault and domestic abuse, among other things-aren’t appropriate to be reflected in art. IMO this desire to have characters be all good or all bad is so frustrating. Good art is not about making people comfortable, it’s about telling the story with a whole heart. As an adaptation for new audiences, I do not feel the decision to add Claudia’s assault or show Lestat as extremely abusive was a cop out or tone deaf-it’s exactly the opposite. For the first time in history we have just begun having real conversations about trauma and the circumstances around it. The cop out would’ve been NOT to take the risk or to bring them up. We can have safe spaces and should, but we cannot continue to look away from relevant issues and forget what everyone wants to be safe from. Young girls DO have their lives changed after such horrors EVERYDAY, and people are loved and deeply love people who hurt them (mentally and physically) because they don’t know what real love should be. These issues, just like racism, are issues of misused power and the pain of it, so who better to convey it than vampires-and why is it so wrong for art to reflect it? Doesn’t calling out the complexities of our bullshit trauma validate it? Do you think NOT addressing it to stay comfortable is better? It drives me nuts to think that’s how a new generation believes healing occurs! Don’t say that! Don’t look at that! Don’t talk about that! The “good guy” isn’t supposed to do that! Really? No shit! The good guy/bad guy trope is an illusion. ALL people have the capacity for both good and evil, and in 2024 we should be able to talk about it. The irony in the ways so many people have perceived this show, and shows attempting to address similar topics is baffling!
Art, true art, is meant to evolve and provoke and start conversations-and I haven’t seen a show do it this successfully in ages. I am deeply saddened that Anne Rice did not sit with the makers and watch, but I choose to believe she reached right through the veil and helped them make this impossible adaptation worthy of her work and theirs. Anne’s work survives because of the risks she took, and the writers (clearly fueled from beyond) have this hit on their hands for being as brave. Art imitates life, and real life is not a k-drama where the heroes and villains are clearly marked. K-drama style storytelling is fun and visual, but it’s not food for the soul-it is candy.
We are here having real conversations about all those uncomfortable “cop outs” because they took a leap of faith and people were moved-many just weren’t expecting it to be so real, which was Anne’s goal all along. Most of us waited to watch it because we all assumed we would get rebooted to death, just as we have for over a decade or more. Those writers gave us gold from that beautiful cannon, which is why the strike mattered so much! It’s so easy to stand in the balcony and pee on the writers, because no one understands, or seems to care,about the veins they have to open to entertain us. If anyone should be offended, it’s the writers who spent months/years handling this work with such reverence-then getting accused of missteps, getting it wrong, or copping out every time some of you saw something you didn’t expect and got uncomfortable.
That’s the hill I’ll die on.
you ate that
thank you!!!!!!
All👏🏿of👏🏿THIS👏🏿
Keep in mine I’m only about 30 minutes in and I’m not sure if it’s touched on later in the video; I think Lestat’s depiction and constant reference to the first interview is doubling down on the “Louis is an unreliable narraror”. He was an unreliable narrator in the first interview and he is currently in this interview. We do not know the true story because we only have his perspective. I think this is a purposeful choice by the creators.
that's what I thought daniel constantly calls louis out for being unreliable and we see that louis built lestat up as a monster in his head. lestat is as messey as louis feelings about him
Lestat in the first book kills everyone, not just evildoers. People forget that Claudia initially manages to poison him by offering him twin children to eat.
He also looks down on humanity all the time.
And I think in season 2 it will come out that Armand is psychically manipulating Louis’ memory.
I think the most important think to remember about this adaptation is that the story is being told through Louis' viewpoint. Its a shame how few people seem to understand the concept of "unreliable narrator". It seems like "I saw it, so it MUST be true."
(I feel that although much of the information is coming from Claudia's diaries, Louis is injecting his perspective as he talks to Daniel.)
Many of the changes could have been an indication of how Louis' worldview had changed.
What we know now about psychology today is vastly different than what we knew in the 1970's. For one, there's a greater public awareness of toxic relationships. So the psychotic behavior we're seeing now could be the result of Louis having a better understanding of Lestat's actions.
But, the reverse can also be true: today's psychological paradigms could lead to revisionism on the part of Louis. Our understanding of psychology is sometimes based on societal norms. A famous example is in the DSM I. It listed homosexuality as "a sociopathic personality disturbance." In the DSM II, homosexuality was no long listed as a disorder.
Another issue is that we assume that modern psychology is applicable to older societies. Were there differences between modern cognition and 18th century cognition? Modern languages show cognitive relativity; different languages activate different areas of the brain. I think its reasonable that humans may have relative psychology based on the societies they are a part of. It could be that Louis doesn't have the knowledge required to understand Lestat.
Also, Louis could be lying to himself. He feels bad about how he failed Claudia, and exaggerating Lestat's monstrousness could be his way of shifting some of the blame. Of course, he wouldn't realize that is what he's doing. And while his companion may be able to read his thoughts, I think he loves Louis too much to want to psychoanalyze him and shatter his illusions.
Another possibility: Louis may have toned down the story when he first told it to Daniel. Louis wanted a nuanced story from the beginning. Unfortunately, he was telling that story to a young Daniel would likely have failed to understand that. I don't think Louis ever stopped loving Lestat; kind of a "yes, he did monstrous things, but he wasn't always like that and even though I hate him, I still love him." A young Daniel would have likely seen Lestat as a traditional vampire monster. (Before Anne Rice, there were very few stories with sympathetic vampires.)
Yet another possibility: Claudia might have intended for Louis to read her diaries when she wrote them. Painting Lestat as more cruel/evil than he really was might have helped pull Louis away from Lestat.
I doubt the show creators were considering these things, but for me it doesn't matter. I am firmly in the "death of the author" camp. I don't really care about what Anne Rice or the show creators intended. I care about what they actually created.
I love the Anne Rice novels, and so far, I love the show and find that the changes actually enhance the story.
I think including the SA was actually a very contemporary and honest in addressing how common SA is for too many people (women). For a lot of us, SA is part of our personal story lines. Seeing it included in such a STRONG female’s experiences may help to diminish the self blame some people may have internalized.
lestat in the show is a natural progression or "unmasking" of the un balanced power dynamic and predatory characterisation. Him snapping one day makes sense since his violence was shown earlier. louis really thought "oh he wont do that to me, he loves me". I think how uncomfortable the scene feels is kinda the point.
also It seems louis is the main character in the show. I don't expect them to pivot like rise did in the books to lestat as a main character.
Yes yes yes absolutelyyy
Lestat in the books confronts Louis about his lies in the book. I think the show already implied Louis is an unreliable narrator.
I loved this series. Though I read the entire chronicles as a teenager (and am currently re-reading them 15 years later to freshen my memory), I had always wanted to see a faithful adaptation of the chronicles. But even as a teen, I knew that a faithful adaptation was a tall order. After the 1994 movie (which my Dad and I still love), we waited decades for a movie series or tv series, but the only thing to show for it was the horrible Queen of the Damned movie. This new show can stand on its own, and may be the best tv adaption any chronicles fan will ever see. So after waiting my whole life, I treasure this show for the great acting, the storytelling, and giving us fans some semblance of the chronicles universe we love.
When I first read IWTV 30y ago, I hated the Lestat character. It wasn’t until TVL that I started liking /loving him. Sam Reid had said on a couple of occasions, “we are doing the books.” So I feel all of what we witnessed reflects that.
I feel like Louis being black and gay is actually a stroke of genius in this adaptation, beyond just being "woke". It means that even when he was a human (unlike the movie version) he was an outcast because he was black, which was a trait he couldn't hide. But he was also gay, being a trait he could hide, and had to at that time. Then he becomes a vampire, with all the superficial power that comes with, BUT even then, he now has another much more frightening thing about his identity he needs to hide from the world, even as his sexuality becomes more socially accepted. It's this sort of irony that makes his characer work so well. Despite this power he has, hes now just a different, more existential and inescapable kind of prisoner. That internal conflict is the core of the character. His arc is about finding who he is in spite of these factors he can't control. It's about maintaining connection to his humanity. He's expected to kill with a sense of impunity, even entitlement. Yet he is determined to be a compassionate, connected being. There's a bilogical imperative and peer pressure at play. Louis' journey is about bravely being who he is, and understanding what that means, no matter the cost. This show is great. All the important shit is still there.
I disagree with how you view this as a second interview with Daniel. It gives Daniel more agency and the ability to call Louis out on bullshit. We know that he is a very unreliable narrator based in The Vampire Lestat. We need Daniel to not fan girl over him like the original Daniel
I do appreciate your takes on this series and I largely agree, or am sympathetic, with most of them. I would like to highlight one defense of the changes to Lestat that you didn’t grapple with and that sort of crystalizes in Amber why the creators included the DV scene. Lestat, as written by Anne Rice IS an abuser. He literally burns down his BF’s house because he’s angry with him (abuse) and commits one definite, and one coded, SA in The Body Thief (I think the house burning is in the body thief as well). The “coded” SA would be the turning of someone into a vampire against their will. Mind you, this comes AFTER he’s supposed to feel guilty about having committed SA in this same novel.
The writer of episode 5 actually called out Lestat’s actions in the novel as part of the motivation for including his beating Louis and to me, it works. If you think DV is hard for a character to come back from when adapted from book to screen, try depicting any of those actions on a television show and seeing how the fandom takes it.
Just because Anne Rice attempts to explain away or reframe these actions in the text doesn’t mean they’re something other than what they were. I think a lot of book fans have this idea of Lestat in their head clouded in nostalgia but revisit the text and he’s quite a bit worst. Beating Louis is totally in his wheelhouse. I don’t think the arbitrary “there is a line he won’t cross” defense works when taking ALL of book Lestat’s actions into account.
I also think there’s room in this discussion for media literacy. Not to suggest you don’t have good media literacy, it seems fantastic from your content. But I’m reminded of another creator’s video on how book fandoms often react when POC are cast to play characters who are explicitly of that same race in the books. Like Rue from Hunger Games. I think there is something to the way our brains process and remember characterizations in print and will form impressions of them that may not hold up to black and white readings of the text.
Thank you so much for your nuanced feedback. I definitely wish I had grappled a little more with my statement that there were lines Lestat “wouldn’t cross,” as I was aware that other actions he commits in the novel could definitely be seen as just as unforgivable. I think I was referring more to the fact that I didn’t believe book Lestat would ever hurt Louis to the extent he did in the series, but I should’ve been clearer. The DV scene was certainly a contentious issue for the fan base and I don’t envy the creators the pressure of making that creative decision. Also, 100 percent agree with your comment about fandom and nostalgia.
@@fourizereviews5123 Thanks for engaging with my comment. I take your point about Lestat’s behavior toward Louis and I do agree that Anne was clear in her depiction of Lestat when it comes to interacting with Louis. The physical violence doesn’t exist.
However, there’s the reality of the physical fight between him and Armand later in the series (earlier in the timeline). I think the suggestion (not by you but by Anne as the voice of God here) that Lestat is capable of great violence to others but not to his active partner is a dangerous one. It’s outdated thinking which is common for the time it was written because if one’s partner exhibits that sort of violence outside of the home, it’s likely to make it way into the home too. See the rate of DV by policemen against their spouses.
I like that the creators seemed to know this instinctually and I felt the DV scene demonstrates a love for the source material as well as a modern sensibility all at once. This feeling is REALLY challenged by the treatment of Claudia and her SA which, like you, I felt was a bizarre inclusion coming on the heels of the same exact storyline being met so harshly by fans of game of thrones. I can only guess it’s the result of having more than one cook in the kitchen. Idk, but your points there were excellent.
And thanks for giving love to Jacob Anderson’s portrayal. He had a hat trick playing one character at so many different points in his life and I feel the fandom hasn’t given him the level of admiration he deserves.
@@isabelb.4917 I agree. Before the show premiered, I revisited the first few books, up through body thief, then I just started reading the synopsis of the rest and was reminded of the tone Anne uses writing these stories. Things like rape, murder and violence aren’t generally contextualized through a moral lens.
It’s a bit shocking revisiting the vampire Armand in 2022. There’s a lot of relationships explored there which are blatantly pedophilic and it’s never discussed or contextualized as a negative. Anne just didn’t write that way. Her characters do horrible things and we just accept it and move on because that’s the way she wrote.
I think it has to do with "smartness" as an abuser that Lestat is, I can't think of him beaten Louis knowing that Louis already dislike him, I have just read the 1st book and it seems that Lestat was trying to do the right thing with Louis to keep him, think of it as manipulation tactic.
@@Buzz0Killington but he beat up Armand because Armand tried to violate him (by drink his blood without permission) so you putting this as an example that least is a abuser because he enjoys making others suffer is odd
4:16 the james summerton's recomendation didn't age well lol (not your fault of course) but I'll check out Michael Simeon! thanks
For me, Louis' guilt over feeding from humans from the get-go made complete sense, as in the prior episode he had expressed how he disliked how he 'preyed' on men's weaknesses, and how it was an obligation to his family that he was a pimp. Lestat offered Louis freedom from his societal constraints during that last scene of ep1, but his offer comes to no fruition, as Louis is now feeding off men in a very intentional, literal way rather than their emotional miseries. regardless in difference of opinion/perception, great video essay! Lots of great conversation is being had about this brilliantly written show
trauma does not make you stronger - the strength a person has to endure and overcome an experience comes from within, never credit that resilience to another
I think that they can't fully explain the Lestat changes without spoiling later seasons.
The physical reaction I had when you did the Lestat the Musical pop up. I love that adaptation. Its so bad that it makes me love it more. Great songs, bad script, almost accurate. My heart will always hold the tv show as the top adaptation no matter how off it is. It's so fun and new and sorta brings a new story out.
On the whole Lestat characterization, I feel like a part of it was wanting a more virtuous Louis and Claudia. I think they were more gray in the original novel and Lestat was constantly seducing and cajoling them down to his level, but the change to make Louis more palatable as a character inevitably had to cast Lestat as even more of a villian. I didn’t find book Louis entirely sympathetic or reliable, but I felt that was part of the appeal. I like that the original story has you horrified that you feel for any of its characters. It might be just me, but I found it a fascinating, deeply uncomfortable read, and I'd love to see an adaptation grapple with that moral horror a little more. (Still not a Lestat apologist)
I agree and disagree about Lestat. I definitely think Sam Reid is playing him as the nuanced character in the totality of the TVC, but I do agree that he had to be written as a violent psychopath for the reasons stated, and yeah that juxtaposition is jarring. I do also believe that all isn’t as it seems, and we haven’t seen any of this from Lestat’s pov yet.🤷🏽♀️
ETA: I think I do agree though that Tomstat’s version was able to retain all of Lestat’s nuance even though he was playing the antagonist from the first book, and yes it’s because Anne wrote the screenplay. I don’t think all the writers on the show necessarily agree when it comes to Lestat’s character and that’s why we’re seeing so many contradictions. I don’t envy how they’ll have to come up with a way to make Lestat sympathetic to get the audience on board for season 3.😬
Tomstat is book 1 Lestat, Samstat is books 1, 2, 3, 4, etc Lestat. I love both but I'm obsessed with Sam's!
@@anacarolmsc But Tomstat seems closer to book Lestat in all of the novels. I mean I can't remember him ever beating Louis up? And even in Interview, Louis never wanted him dead. He just goes along with Claudia the way he goes along with everything she and Lestat decide.
I get why Book Lestat fans may be upset, but as a POC, episode 5 was my favorite episode of season 1 (Episodes 1 and 7 being close behind). The Lestat shown in episodes 1-4 would be 100% abusive, and the road to getting there was built well. Even if memory stuff comes into play, the season as a whole is still a fantastic but brutal and honest depiction of emotional and physical abuse by a loved one. I read most of the books, but I don't love them, and the changes made for the show were changes that I loved. This show made me love Louis and Claudia, characters that I did not care for in the book. Great review, I thoroughly enjoyed watching this video, even if we disagree on some stuff.
The meta commentary on how differently events are viewed during the second interview versus in the first interview actually makes perfect sense, in my opinion-because the Vampire Chronicles(books) fandom has ALWAYS hotly debated Book 1(Lestat's characterization through Louis' POV) versus Book 2(Lestat's characterization through Lestat's own POV), pointed to how Lestat is almost like two completely different characters from one book to the other, and argued pretty much endlessly over which version of Lestat is the true/definitive version of the character or not and such. I think it was also about paying homage to the previous movie adaptation's existence though, not just to the books; I think it was more about declaring that they weren't trying to remake or undo the movie's adaptation, they just wanted to pick up that legacy[ along with the legacy of the book series] and carry it onward one step further beyond the footsteps left behind by that film.
The AMC tv series is also chock full of nods to various /monster/vampire movies and tv series from throughout history, and nods to many various other meta VC fandom culture elements(like the cover/art on a particular edition of one of the books that featured Lestat/Louis/Claudia dressed all in white); which I feel is all actually kinda fabulous, because Anne Rice based her book vampires on old movie vampires more than on anything else and was a huge fan of keeping up with various other vampire movies and tv series over the years and often commenting on them or her personal impressions of them, and I personally think it is a great nod also to the way that Ricean vampires became super influential and oft nodded to by other vampire fiction/media for decades after as well.
I also like the way it kinda pays homage to the fact that Anne Rice always conceived her vampires as living in then-current days, as if they might have been true stories happening at the time when they were first published-it's very reminiscent of old gothic fiction that was often framed as if they could have been "true" stories really happening in those times. And old!Daniel in the tv series states that he recognizes his voice on the tapes but doesn't remember it happening at all, clearly implying that he has either forgotten or had the previous encountered erased from his memory until Louis contacts him and dredges it up again, so there's potentially good in-universe reason for why his life in the tv series has played out differently(So it's also possibly a bit of meta nod I think maybe to the fact that the characters were portrayed by completely different actors in the movie version than in the tv series, too; so it "was them", but it also "wasn't" them😊🤭🤭😁😂💖).
As someone who’s been in a gay toxic first relationship with an abusive narcissist who was a lot older than me, I honestly felt very seen by this show. The grooming, the gaslighting, the seemingly extreme contradictions in personality, the flash mood swings, Louis’ guilt for hating him because he can still see the good. As a metaphor for an abusive relationship, it’s excellent, and I think it explains Louis’ decision to kill Lestat better than the book did.
I think Lestat wasn’t completely “done” as a character in IwtV, and that the Lestat from the show makes more sense for that story. The Lestat that he becomes feels like a completely different character, and that will be his character arc in the next seasons and spin offs they manage to make.
TH-cam randomly brought up your vid today. Not only do I love your lengthy analysis as I am a huge Anne Rice vampire fan, but big props to you for sourcing all the other TH-camrs who have covered this and I have watched! **subscribed**
Thank you so much! They’re incredible creators who I’ve admired for a long time.
One of the main things about the first book is that Louis is a very very unreliable narrator so I think they are going to do something about that about Lestat, we haven't seen anything from his pov, specially with Armand still involved with Louis
all people nowadays want are remakes and remakes of remakes, it tiring
this show is a masterclass of adaptations. you have a story molded fresh for a new media with no interest in replicating the events of the original, but deep dive into other ideas and themes brought up by the books and expanded. that's what a copy of someones work, but a study of it.
I loved this adaptation and really loved what they did with Claudia, too bad a different actress will be taking over the role, I do love Bailey Bass.
I haven’t read the Vampire Chronicles yet but I really love how both Tom and Sam depict Lestat, he’s such a multifaceted character. I tend to enjoy all versions of him, but I do think it’s important to not overlook how different his dynamic is with Louis now that he’s black, I appreciate when non-black ppl acknowledge that and it’s good that y’all pointed that out
I think it’s cool to legitimise changes to the story in the eyes of fans. It shows that you know what the audience might be feeling so you give them a resolution to what you anticipate they are going to think. I’ve always admired writers who do that. It’s like having a distant conversation with the audience.
just finished season 1 and ran to youtube loll, this was a good video!
i will say though as someone who experienced a decade of DV and years of IPV i actually found the explicit portrayal of abuse more interesting and thought provoking, it made me ponder louis and lestat’s relationship and how their dynamic in its simplest form is a very familiar feeling to myself and many other survivors, watching lestat’s cycle of being charming and loving, falling apart and hurting people, then attempting to buy their love back with lavish gifts only made his death scene that much more guttural and heart wrenching
i personally appreciated the direction the writers took, but i definitely understand where people who have a problem with it are coming from
Please go watch the second season, you're missing out.
haven’t watched the show or read the book, but changing Louis’ race and introducing the problems he faces as a black man makes a lot more sense for his character. I found it very ironic for him to be burdened with chronic empathy and also be a plantation owner 💀
I just finished the first book and Louis's hypocrisy seemed pretty intentional
Re: lestat being evil, as a Vampire Story this gothic love story between a volatile immortal and his out of his depth boytoy SLAPS. I don't actually much care for Rice's authorial intent or fans' love for Lestat. Abusers are multi-layered characters and this is a brilliant depiction of it. We do unfortunately all fall in love with them in the wrong circumstances.
EXACTLY
S2 SPOILER ALERT
Louis’ perspective vastly changes throughout the entire series of interview with vampire season one and season two. If Louis were to give his recollection of the events of his life and his turning and Lestat after knowing he had saved him, after realizing Armand lied to him, and after accepting Claudia was a mistake, I think we would’ve gotten a very different display, but at the end of the day he told the story and recalled the events before he had that epiphany and a more holistic understanding of the events of his life. It was the retelling itself that led to this awakening.
I honestly don’t mind the complexity of Lestat displayed. While yes, it deviates from the books, I think it works. The intensity of a toxic relationship is excellently displayed. As a person who has been in emotionally manipulative relationships, I thought it was very accurate how on one hand, you are charmed by their power, exciting personality and good looks, but on the other hand, they are cruel, narcissistic and inconsistent with their love. You keep falling in again and again and you physically cannot leave because of the biochemistry of it all.
I want to see various stories, themes, etc. Even if trauma is involved. I don’t want a bunch of white washing or purification. Yes, it’s uncomfortable to watch white on black violence. But I want to hear Louis’ truth. POCS and gays are not babies who need to be protected and shielded from the reality of marginalization and violence. WE KNOW. Some of us have lived it. But I want to see this Louis’ story unbiased and unchanged and come to my own conclusion about what it all means. Watching him evolve through grief, trauma and other horrible events to find personal growth is relevant to all of us.
When people are uncomfortable seeing some of this stuff, it just speaks to where they are mentally and emotionally based on THEIR own baggage distorting their understanding of the world. I don’t think the creative changes are the problem. I don’t think the story should be change into something simply because people are uncomfortable looking at it. As a writer myself, the story writes itself through me. It’s simply my job to manifest it as a piece of work.
A persons life experiences are what they are, regardless of if they are upsetting or not. I really believe we should treat characters the same way, actualize them, and not have an overly woke mentality about them, censoring the truth of their reality simply because it’s uncomfortable for us to hold space for it.
I mean for crying out loud, it’s horror. It’s not supposed to be easy to watch. If you want rainbows and cupcakes Lestat, then go read a fanfiction. At the end of the day, they aren’t human. They are bloodsucking spawns of a demon. It’s supposed to be ugly and terrible. People are losing sight of the reality that these are wild animals who eat people. Why are you surprised that they would beat each other up? Animals are not bound to moral complications like humans are. They simply act on their impulses.
I agree that Claudia’s SA was unnecessary. It added nothing to the story. That’s the one thing I hate about this show. Tbh I think the writers just couldn’t think of another way to make her interesting since she had already killed her human friend. Also, when Lestat makes fun of her for it, that “was in very poor taste.” I think on one hand, we could consider the time period in which it happened and how no one had an understanding of mental health. But also that it’s coming from Louis’s recollection through Claudia’s retelling. Who knows how it actually went down.
But yes. There are tons of tired tropes, stereotypes and racist/misogynist stories. This show really does show a more nuanced angle to Louis that I appreciate. It made a whole bunch of people interested in a genre they might’ve never been otherwise. Imo, we really have to weigh the benefits against the harms.
That James Somerton plug did NOT age well lmaooooo
On the one hand, the hints and setup are all over the place that Lestat's character assassination is the result of an unreliable narrative...but they've certainly made a confused mess of things in the process.
I’d say to just give the show until they get to adapting TVL if everything goes as planned. The original book didn’t paint Lestat in that positive of a light (albeit still in sympathetic) in my opinion and with the intent in mind of him being extremely morally dubious and arguably emotionally abusive.
When I first saw the 90s Interview with the Vampire, I sympathized with Louis' chronic ennui, pitied Lestat's misfortune but admired his zest for life, and respected Claudia for her fierce independence. But as I rewatched it throughout the years I could never shake the feeling that there must have been an ocean between the story Louis recounted and how things really happened during his decades with Lestat. I never got any joie de vivre or even sardonic quips from Louis that made me think he would find joy with any partner, so I know Lestat's patience must've been exhausted living with Louis while providing him comfort. I thought, 'Louis, but why did you stay when there was nothing left to gain from Lestat if he was so insufferable?' Lestat chose Louis, but did Louis withhold his affections as his leverage over Lestat instead of deliberately not choosing Lestat? Now, having watched season 2, hindsight is definitely 20/20. Whew! One thing I really appreciate about the series is the theme of "memory vs truth". I'm viewing the series in that frame. Louis and Lestat's characters are much richer, not so much for the sake of likeability, but there are deliberate contradictions needed to allow the audience to get to certain revelations.
I thought the show was amazing. At the end of the first episode I was hooked.
Lestat brutally reminding us that he’s still a fucking monster was my favorite scene ! literally my favorite character long live episode 5
he’s the type of character you love to hate and watching him get what he deserves at the end was so fun
Really great video essay! I watched this show last year without having read the novels, and for me personally I felt Lestat’s character was fairly well executed and while the DV scene was brutal, it didn’t feel completely out of left field as a viewer with no knowledge of the books. Although you brought up some very good points which make me want to go back and read the books and watch the 90s movie.
I am responding to your Lestat section at the time of my listening to it. I think the reason Lestat is so vile is because it's taken from Claudia's perspective and I believe Armand is manipulating Louis to believe that version of things. I think that Lestat's true nature will be revealed in a later season, sort of like it is in the books. Also, I think the audience is humanizing the relationship between 3 serial killers a bit much. As you pointed out Lestat says to Louis that he is trying to restrain himself and whatever action Louis takes that puts Lestat over the edge happens off-screen. The time compression plays a role here, in the book it's like 70 years before Claudia makes a move against Lestat. It's 3 full grown adults having a fight that gets out of hand in spite of their physical attributes. They never got that physical in the books and I can understand all the points of the fans who were shocked by the scenes in Episode 5, but as I theorized I think it's partially false.
Speaking of Paul, I've felt for some time that the actor playing him, has not had enough recognition. His name is Steven G. Norfleet and he has played at least as much as the other secondary characters, yet has been disappeared. The dinner verbal exchange, the tap dance, the rooftop . . . etc.
I’m sorry, but how is not normal for someone who is previously shown as extremely violent to others, possessive and jealous of Louis from his own family, flings and priest, and extremely old powerful vampire to not get to a breaking point to abuse their partner when that partner wants to leave??? Let’s be real, it’s what abusers do and most of the time, spouses usually excuse them as long as they’re not at the end of the abuse but it always ends in that way.
I'm only 30 minutes into this so I'm sorry but I have to disagree. This lestat is.... better than the books. I'm sure many will disagree, that's fine. But I can't stand Anne Rice's writing style - I had to stop reading after the third book. That may inform my opinion here. I could not STAND Lestat in the books. I was shouting at my paperback half the time - i wanted to strangle that narcissistic POS. It just read as smarmy and I wanted to attack him like a wild chimpanzee - and maybe it's worth a reread now, because at the time, this all felt entirely unintentional. It was FEELING like Anne Rice was trying to make me like him and find him charming - I couldn't stomach it.
The new adaption is cathartic for me. Is Lestat abusive? Yes. Is he charming? Yes. Narcissistic? Smarmy? All of the bad things I thought about him on reading IWTV/TVL/QOTD? Yes, yes, and yes. But now I have permission to hate him, and therefore, ironically, permission to LOOOOVE him because of the acknowledgment of his flaws and personal flavor of crazy.
Reading the books, it felt like I was going insane. "How could anyone like this guy? Everyone in the fandom loves him! What on earth...? Am I supposed to find him suave for waking up from near-death and immediately joining a rock band? WHAT IS GOING ONNNN"
But with the acknowledgement that he is, in fact, a vain stupid abusive bastard that oozes charisma out of every pore, I look at that nugget of information and can go, "oh my god, Lestat would TOTALLY do that, that's brilliant, that's SOOOO HIM! HAH!" and laugh about it, and enjoy him.
It elevates the character for me. IDK.
It's been a while, but I do seem to recall the lines that Lestat would or wouldn't cross in the books shifting sometimes-depending on his mood/temper/other-extenuating-factors/etcetera, and or depending upon which point in his character development/journey or whatever he was at or not exactly. Like, I seem to recall him deciding at certain points to try and stop doing certain things that he had done previously-or deciding to actually throw up his hands and not give a rip anymore and actually DO certain things that he previously wouldn't have. (Both good things and bad things, depending on the incident.) And one could say that this scene is not necessarily that far departed in some ways from what Lestat does in the books later on to David, a character that he supposedly also loved at least to some extent or another.
But, honestly, maybe it really was just that they didn't want what Louis and Claudia did to have been that much worse than anything that Lestat had done. Even if they hadn't shown us glimpses of Lestat's backstory and such that we didn't get in the books until book two or later. Maybe they didn't want Lestat to have to forgive Louis for anything any more horrible than Louis would need to forgive Lestat for. Who knows.
And, while it is true that abuse is still abuse even between two vampires, it is also true that the implications are not necessarily the same if you know that what you're doing can't kill them versus if you simply don't care whether what you're doing might/could kill them or not(still horrible, yes, but slightly differently)-AND it is also true that vampires who are hundreds of years old are capable of doing truly devastating/destructive things with much less intentional effort than a human would be capable of, it's kind of like how easily a small child could seriously injure or even kill a tiny kitten even without any deliberately malicious intent behind their actions at all, nevermind if they actually lost control of themselves because something triggered an intense motion they weren't particularly great at self-regulating yet or whatever. (However, Lestat's actions in the tv series certainly do cross the line on that much more than say Edward Cullen's actions during Bella's birthday party, where Edward tries to push Bella out of harm's way but accidentally uses too much of his inhuman strength without realizing it and sends her flying across the room way further than he intended to.)
But, honestly, why is it more horrible that Louis(or the audience) should have to overlook or forgive Lestat doing these horrible things specifically to him personally than it is for Louis to need to forgive or overlook Lestat doing these horrible things to other characters? That's a pretty slippery slippery line to tread, I think. Even with the books, there are many readers who find Lestat unforgivable, even after learning all the internal thoughts/motivations and backstory that Louis didn't have in the first book. Everybody has their own lines across which a character becomes too unlikable, and that's fine. But, morally speaking, I don't think it's worse for Lestat to be domestically violent than it is for Lestat to be a brutal murderer and/or a sadistic torturer-and letting letting characters be horrible to everyone and anyone else except their love interest can foster toxic real life mindsets where people will stay with and/or protect someone as long as that person only does terrible things to other people and never to their partner, as if that makes it any less terrible. As long as they actually show Lestat self-reflecting and genuinely remorseful and actively making efforts to change his behavior in the future so that he legitimately betters himself and isn't still behaving that horribly later on in the story(like if we make it to events later in the series than Louis' interview) I don't mind it-although I also really can't blame anyone who does mind it either. But that's just me, I guess.
i’d love to hear your thoughts on season 2!! i think it did a lot better of a job at hammering out the whole unreliable narrator/memory issues that you mention at the beginning of the video
also you’re 100% correct jacob anderson is a gift to this world, lestat and armand are completely justified bc if i was faced with his helen of troy beauty i would also commit unspeakable acts of service to him
I just found you randomly and this is very well done. Thank you!
Thank you so much!
after loving the series for so long, the incident of episode 5 was not at all out of left field, in my opinion. he has always been this unpredictable, yet seductive, loveable yet hateable freak! must we forget that the one of the very first things he did after becoming a vampire in the book was go on a little massacre, just for funsies?
and i agree with what a lot of other people are saying- you cannot remove the abuser’s humanity. its more dangerous to portray the abuse as something you see coming, that the abuser cannot have multitudes and sympathetic moments. because people are just complicated. an abuser is not someone lurking in the shadows, plotting horrific acts of malice towards their victims. as sam reid describes in one interview, lestat is not *intending* to become this monster who beats his lovers. he is an incredibly emotional vampire with explosive rage, and the decisions he makes never gets him what he wants- which is to be loved. a lot of abusers are like that too. btw im not trying to be a lestat apologist or whatever, dude is a terrible person and deserved everything that happened to him in that last episode. claudia deserved to torture him a little more before he died, if not for her then for revenge for louis.
i still love lestat, in all of his horrible evil disgustingness. i would thank him for punching a huge hole through my skull like he did to that priest
I disagree totally about Lestat. I loved the changes to him and think his adaptation was the best part of the series. The entire thing makes much more sense this way. I think it works much better overall.
That’s great! Even though the changes didn’t work for me personally, I’m curious to see where they take his character.
I also think that, since it was told from Louis and Claudia's perspectives, it was very exaggerated and going forward they may tell the same story from lestats perspective. Keep in mind they've made multiple references to the fact that Louis consistently editorializes whether intentionally or not. They've explained very in depth about how memory is a fickle thing and shit gets twisted very easily, exaggerated. Louis has proven himself to be a flawed witness multiple times throughout the series and they drove tht point home very hard in the last episode.
So this adaptation may or may not be a showcase of the entire story going forward
I agree!!!!
This might be one of my favourite adaptation attempts ever. It genuinely feels like the show is required reading in order to fully understand this story. Like, we got louis’ version of the story in the first book, lestat’s in the second, the movie adapts the original interview in San Francisco and then the show continues in from there, unravelling the story from a new perspective. I guess it’s cause it doesn’t feel like an adaptation as much as it feels like a continuation of the narrative. Having watched the movie, then started reading the book at the same time as I watched the show, they complement each other perfectly and I feel like I wouldn’t have as full an understanding of the entire story here as I do if I hadn’t watched/read everything. Taken all together the show, movie and book paint a full picture
this is a solid video, but i hope u will make another one for season 2 ,pretty sure u changed ur mind about many points
One little thing, Anne Rice change her attitudes about her vampires when Charlaine Harris books and later adaptation True Blood become popular, is an irony seeing that Harris books are mostly based on Anne Rice books, her vampires continue to be asexual, but their sex stopped being metaphorical, but gradually become literal, hell, in her last book, The Prince Lestat, Lestat not only had sex with a woman, but also had a child with her.
I am a fan of the show and I didn't read the book (it is on my TBR). Thanks so much for this video as it has given me some insights and context into the show that I didn't have beforehand! Your video was very engaging and the 40 minutes flew by. Looking forward to a future video about Season 2, if there is one.
Thank you so much!
Being from a family, which has had it's ups and downs with abuse,... That Lestat vs. Louis fight, really shook me up !!!! I will continue to watch though..❤
This is a cool adaptation and I’m glad you walked me through it so I can just jump in to S2! Now I can appreciate the changes and watch with an open mind!
Thank you!
as someone who hasn’t watched the show but who is a major fan of the books i think your analysis of lestat really hits the nail on the head - especially with what you’ve said/what i’ve heard of him in the show. the lestat we see in interview is fundamentally different from the lestat we see in the vampire lestat/queen of the damned/etc. because of who’s perspective the story is from.
interview is from louis’ perspective - it’s his story, his recollection of events, his perception of how lestat is/was during that time period, while tvl and qotd are written by lestat - so the version of him we see is completely different.
we know that both louis and lestat are (in the novels) extremely unreliable narrators (lestat’s criticisms of louis’ retelling of events in the beginning of tvl is a pretty big example) and we also know that lestat is kind of in love with himself (think the opening paragraph of tvl or that one line in qotd where he says that he promises he’s not making it up when people say that they love him/think he’s beautiful he just knows it due to “infallible psychic power”) so the differences between these versions of lestat - while also probably being somewhat merited to anne rice simply changing the character as the series went on - can also be assigned to the fact that what louis and lestat say just can’t be taken at face value.
again, i haven’t watched the show so i’m not 100% sure how well this is reflected in the adaptation (i’m just going off what has been said in this video and what i’ve heard from other fans) but the ideas of blending the lestat from the later books in the series with the lestat of iwtv just…isn’t a good idea because they’re so different from one another due to the different perspectives in the books. if you go with the “truth” of the brat prince from the rest of the vampire chronicles you miss a hugely important part of iwtv but if you stick entirely to lestat from iwtv you have to completely forego that different characterisation from the later books.
i think the different characterisation might also be somewhat attributed to lestat’s resting underground for a couple decades/centuries thing so when he wakes up in tvl he’s got a much fresher perspective/zeal/whatever and thus acts a bit differently but that’s probably a whole separate rant :P
anyways, thank you so much for this video! it was great!
I really love watching sober points of view of the show, louis is a character that for me only grows in the show but its one who takes the greatest negative criticism. and I understand the point about lestat. particularly one of the things that captivated me in the show was his unpredictability, he's the horror that sustains the dynamics of the story, someone I would love to know the origin of.
I have always been a Louis stan and I really enjoyed Jacob Anderson's performance. Apparently subsequent seasons will start to explore Lestat's backstory which is exciting!
I have to preface this with saying that I have never read the books but I understand the profound love the fan base has for the books and understand the base storyline. I wish the interaction with killer was framed more as her realizing that despite Lestat being cruel to her, Louis was there to protect her. There was a buffer, a safety net. I would have been fine in writing and having the scene framed that way (even rewriting it to have Claudia be smarter and escape killer which would foreshadow her taking down Lestat). I also wonder after the reveal of Armand and how jailed Louis is by him, if Armand hasn’t influenced Louis’ memory as well. I am have no doubt that Lestat was toxic and emotionally abusive to Louis or that there probably was a “fight” of some kind; but, the writers have set a precedent of unreliable narrators.
11:31 Honestly, I don’t feel the references to the old interview is an attempt at retconning. As someone unfamiliar with the material, it only appeared to be a nod to theme of memory and also creating conflict between Louie and the interviewer-whether or not he is a reliable narrator. Creates a mission for the interviewer to push him on the truth
I love both adaptations actually. And in both, Lestat is my favourite. And even though the fight/abuse scene is horrific, and wasn't like that in the book, it doesn't come totally out of thin air. But I don't see the context as "White man beating up black man." I see the context as "domestic violence." And does it really come so farfetched for Lestat to be unhinged after what he's been through?
I mean, read the books. Spoiler ahead...
spoiler
He was abused as a child after he wanted to join the church and his father wouldn't let him and would have him beat up mercilessly to "kick the idea out of him" basically. Then he was beat up again after he ran away with gipsies and then, when he's finally finding the love of his life, he's abducted by a vampire who locks him up with dead bodies. He doesn't give him a choice in becoming a vampire and then is like "goodluck sucker, bye!" He's stumbling in the dark with way more power than he knows what to do with. The one person who he loves more than anything whithers away with sickness and when she's a vampire she goes away from him again. So when he has Louis and Claudia he makes sure he never tells them all the secrets of vampiricy because then they would no longer need him and leave him because the only way he knows love is being a dick...apparantly...
The only person who ever put a gun to my head (outside Army war games) was a rich, white guy I made the mistake of dating. But it was my Black dad that I saw in Lestat: beauty, fashion, wit; a fire that all the moths flutter around before he selects whom to cut dead with his blistering put-downs. Bad guys come in all colors. At least this one is enjoyable at the safe distance of a TV screen. Great summary (psst! Better than "Maven" constantly picking nits)!
I interpret the fight (or beat down as it was presented in S1E5) as a damaged abuser doing the last thing he can think to do to keep his partner and child from running to Europe on a mission that is sure to end in their demise… when transparency and truthfulness would have sufficed.
He really could have just told Claudia, especially, about the dangers she’d face from the old world vampires instead of just using it as an unexplained jab said in anger.
Duh Lestat IS A BIG OL’ MESS. SHE’S A MESSY QUEEN. She is complicated and sassy and an overt narcissist monster that not just emotionally abusive but also physically. Entirely passionate in a good and bad way. I think Sam did a great job with the writing. The only thing I saw that was a negative was his mumbled French. I have french friends that DID NOT like his French but liked the character.
… Tom Cruise wasn’t the greatest version of Lestat - I saw no extremes with him passionate lover of Louis nor the tempestuous rage, nor was he gay enough. It really felt like the movie studio filtered or censored Rice’s true story of Lestat. God forbid anyone or vampire characters could be ghey or omni sexual.
A really good essay, I'm glad to see more discussion of this show! (especially ones like this, that feel nuanced and thoughtful).
Considering Lestat, I had this initial idea that the intent of the show is still to portray Louis as an unreliable narrator (as in the book), in that he's telling "the truth" this time around, which means his version of Lestat retains some of the traits he has in the later books. But then still has to also justify to himself why he had to attempt to get rid of him, and went overboard (there's also the whole thing with Armand and how his influence might factor into the story...). I agree with you and others that the violence was overt and absolutely horrifying, so I wonder if the events depicted are what really happened, or just what Louis told Daniel - who constantly seems to be picking apart this new version of events - happened. Which to me feels like an attempt to make the audience question Louis' honesty (I laughed out loud about your comment of Louis looking like he's being held at gunpoint). I guess this would explain why Lestat's characterisation is such a mess. Retconning would be in the spirit of the source material! 😅
But most likely I'm just reaching and what we saw was exactly what happened, if the creators even made a point of addressing the fact that the abuse was shown from Claudia's point of view, as you said here. I'm not really familiar at all about behind the scenes interviews and such, so maybe there's more that I'm unaware of. It's just kind of disappointing since they managed to balance a lot of the other things so well even with the changes. I guess we'll see how things pan out in season 2.
Anyway, subscribed and hoping to see more long videos from you!
Thank you so much for your kind words. I definitely agree with your points about the show potentially framing Louis as an unreliable narrator. I’m curious to see where they take that in S2.
In Anne's defense and the adaptation that AMC is doing for its portrayal of the character Lestat is that Anne's inspiration for Lestat was her husband, Stan. I don't think she knew when she was writing about Lestat in her first book it was and I honestly can't say that Stan was abusive towards her in their marriage. I'd like to believe that it wasn't as in her subsequent books, she portrayed Lestat in a better light. She did finally reveal that part of her inspiration for Lestat was from her husband after he died.
The Lestat that AMC is showing removes that sentimentality to show the monsters that all vampires are. Louis is no exception in this series. He threatened to kill his own brother even /before/ he was turned by Lestat. These aren't Anne's monsters, their AMC's take on these characters without the sentimentalisation that a creator has for her creations.
I would argue that it isn't just that Louis suddenly starts to feel guilty that Lestat kills that one random opera singer....it's the fact that Louis is slowly realizing that Lestat isn't just killing because they're vampires who need blood to survive, Louis is slowly realizing that Lestat doesn't just kill this guy but is slowly and agonizingly TORTURING this guy over a very lengthy extended amount of time *_and_* Lestat is literally delighting in doing it. It isn't the fact that Lestat kills a humanbeing that becomes too much for Louis to tolerate, it's the fact that Lestat is ENJOYING causing unnecessary suffering and terror and pain while killing people which begins to turn Louis' stomach.
I think for what the show was and lestat was for me Episode five works a little more than I think people would like but then that also makes me more sympathetic to Louis and Claudia at the end and for lestats death (almost) that is a big lightbulb moment for him that he’s got to change and that when we will be seeing the better lestat
I'm still at the beginning of watching your essay, but off top, I wanna give you kudos for linking to other vloggers videos interpreting and dissecting this work, particularly when it comes to expertise and experiences you might lack. I hope you inspire more creators to do so.
@@yoyodre Thank you so much.
@@fourizereviews5123 You're welcome. I'm almost done. Had to break for dinner. I subscribe now tho
I have never read Anne Rice's books. I saw IWTV 1994 & it was a neat film. I happened to see this reimagining on AMC +, so I decided to watch. I love supernatural thrillers/ Horror genre, so this piqued my interest. So, I'm a Cis Gay POC Man watching this show with no real frame of reference other than the 1994 film I saw in the early 00s. I also grew up in an overly religious, and emotionally/physically abusive home. There is a lot in this show that has been well done. I do see some plot beats that got muddled but I do enjoy it. Especially with how queer it is.
For me I love Louis as a character, and I'm really enjoying Lestat. I don't know much about Lestat's future in the Vampire Chronicles, I feel a lot of people are frustrated with Lestat being an abuser in this iteration. Here is where I am at. The fight scene from Claudia's perspective. DAMN THAT GAVE ME FLASH BACKS, as a 5-year-old watching my parents fights using pans, punching each other. Claudia being in the corner, made me feel helpless like I was as a child watching glass break, walls being punched, and my mother being thrown against objects. That was a really tough scene to watch. But it was accurate of how it feels. The apology scenes were on point. The "Thats not who I want to be anymore line". Textbook abuser language. I personally don't think they should shy away from the subject. I think Lestat has a lot of character development and growth and def needs a redemption arc if he is the hero of the Vampire Chronicles from what it sounds like he is. However, it needs to be done tastefully. I also don't think Louis or Lestat should have any form of reconciliation or relationship after the fact. (I don't know story beats after IWTV so not sure if they do.) In this adaptation I don't think they should, or it has a bad connotation to it.
From the looks of it Armand or Rashid I guess really care for Louis. Lets just hope it isn't a situation where Louis in the future of the show is having to pick between Lestat and his new partner.
I love the show so much and can’t wait for the next season!
I thought you were talking the books. Because Lestat right out tells the reader he's Queer or Bi. "I've always been a lover of men & women. He' definitely proved that... Straight up blood ho😂😂!!! Good thing vamos don't catch communicable diseases because he'd have problem....
As someone who just so far watched the movie and the show, that fight scene did made very uncomfortable, sad and disturbed, but at same time I felt like it made sense for that Lestat. He's absolutely awful and has a deeply fear to be abandoned for those that he loves (for me it's only Louis that he loves tbh, as I feel like he only goes out of his away to avoid her flee is because he knew that without her he would lose Louis for good eventually), and reacts to that fear in the worst possible way. I feel like he also doesn't quite know what to do on a relationship- and to that I honestly can relate, even if I ain't toxic and manipulative as him.
So anyway, I hate and love Lestat. I hate him because he's awful, and I love him for the same reason. I still feel like I'll never watch that fight scene without feeling horrible, but I was strangely happy that Louis didn't killed him on the show as well. Also I watched it with some friends, and we'd joke that we also ended up on a toxic relationship with Lestat at the end of the season- and I feel like I honestly can't disagree, unfortunately- and that video of James Somerton actually sumarizes how I felt, it's really really good. And before anyone calls me out, I don't excuse any of Lestat's actions. He seems to be traumatized himself, but his actions are just really horrible anyway. He's indeed a lot, a mess, a piece of work too far from finished. One that I'm kinda vibrating to see where they will lead to- can't wait to cry my ass again for this awfully narcissist and possessive vampire and the consequences of his actions on the lives of those that he loves. yipee
🧐 I love this series and the changes from the book
New Orleans cinematography is so sensual and vibrant.
The history of Storyville is fascinating.
🥵 The sexual chemistry between Louis and Lestat is hotter than this summer.🔥🔥
I wanted more scenes of Louis family and his Vampire family dealing with each other 😮
😬 Claudia from episodes 4 to 7 emotional transformation had me awestruck🎉🎉
🏆 I have watched these 7 episodes so many times and still can't stop watching them 🤩🥰
Oof ..
That Somerton rec didn't age well
I liked the different take on the characters. As a vampire lover,I never see them as having human sexuality. They're just lustful beings imo. Like how it was portrayed in True Blood. No boxes,they just are. Using racial change (which I'm usually not a fan of and I'm melanated btw) made it more complex and the story not so simple, especially during the era. Thinking too deeply about his profession is crazy, that was a common thing in those days and very on brand. Even using the creole factor, which is more important than ppl may really understand. Making the girl older allowed more room that you can't do with a 5 yr old . I watched it for what it was, didn't get into all the nuance of boxes check. Looking forward to season 2. Nice review!
I am so nervous for season two, I hope it doesn't disappoint me!
The first season has set expectations pretty high.
In reference to your point about Lestat, I feel that a character capable to rape (in one of the later books where the text is from Lestat’s pov) is one who can commit physical violence (as in this series). Both are unforgivable and equally heinous acts IMO so I wonder whether this footprint gave the writers reason to justify Lestat’s ability to commit DV.
The vampiric power potential then makes the degree of violence extremely painful to watch.
As some commenters have stated, I suspect that there will be some narrative correction of the events seen in this season in later seasons due to the POV aspect of this season and the ‘odyssey of recollection!
Justice for Queen of the Damned (2002) 😭 It was so campy, had a dope soundtrack, and Aaliyah 💔 #cultclassic
love this video and you and me simping over jacob anderson, that’s so real
Hi. Since you like Jacob Anderson's voice, you'd probably like to listen to his songs. He uses the name Raleigh Ritchie. I love the songs " werld is mine", "bloodsport", "keep it simple","time in a tree", well I think l am already a fan😉
Omg thank you! I will be sure to check those out.
YO OH MY GOD HE'S RALEIGH RITCHIE???? NO WONDER HE LOOKED AND SOUNDED SO FAMILIAR 😭
Completely missed that the show existed, really looking forward to watching it and coming back to this video
This is all recontextualized if you get through season 2..
I have loved Louis since I was a Sophomore in High school in 2001. I love book version, movie version, TV version.
Same. There are so many naysayers saying show Louis is too different and I’m like, we’re you really a Louis fan? Because I’ve loved him since I was 9 and I adore every version!
As someone from Louisiana, the ‘at this point how hasn’t anyone noticed the unusually high murder rate in New Orleans’ bit made me LAUGH
Girl, Nawlins is just LIKE THAT 🤷🏻♀️