![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I almost hate to keep circling the drain on what this season of IwtV has done, but it's so choice and so intentional and it makes my little writer's heart sing. I love it because I love narrative. Storytelling in all of its nuanced, complex, diverse ways is a thing that fascinates me to no end. An unreliable narrator is arguably one of my favorite things because I already have an almost immediate distrust of the narrative voice. So, when an author does that shit on purpose? 😍
Oh my Fucking Gods! I have a hard on for that shit because who do you trust, what's the truth, how do we understand the story we are being told? I love the act of identifying loosely patched over edges and pulling at loose threads. There's a lie here, someone is playing all up in my face and I want the answers! And a really good writer who implements an unreliable narrator leaves tells all the fuck over the place. After all ....
"You cannot script a hurricane."
Okay, here we are in episode seven, still circling the drain of who has ownership of the story? Louis is the vampire who is being "interviewed" with the occasional footnote offered by Armand. This is in tension with the book in which Louis's is the only voice. What has changed, to make this a richer story, is how introducing Armand's perspective now turns everything on its head. It's an explicit kind of dig at the way that interviews are curated by both the interviewer and the interviewee. What are you willing to discuss? What's on the record? What's off the record? How much external research and material will be introduced? How does the story survive interpretation? What's the fucking goal here?
I'm thinking a little about the Andrew McCarthy documentary about the Brat Pack and how one New York Magazine article in 1985 turned the lives of a group of up and coming actors sideways. David Blum, who wrote the article, had an agenda. He had a point to prove and the article wasn't especially flattering. Watching the doc it becomes clear that Emilio Estevez had a different idea about what that article was supposed to be about. But such is the nature of the interview. In the end, the story shared, in all of its limited, constructed dance of questions and answers is still subject to editing, the perspective of the interviewer, and interpretation by the reader.
Here, Louis has a point to make. Exactly what that is? Who really knows. He does the first interview as a kind of love letter/suicide note to the world before he walks into the sun. This "re-do" might still be such. It also might be his attempt to understand what happened. He has questions, he knows there's holes and somewhere in the back of his mind, he knows that he can't and doesn't trust Armand. He also could want to, as I think he states in S1E1, provide an accurate accounting of what vampires are like.
Honestly, I'm on the self-discovery train.
I love how when Louis gets angry, and he has been getting angrier and angrier, he snaps hard on people. The way he shushes Daniel, "I am speaking," was delicious. Armand's discomfort was apparent and I had to wonder given this is the season's penultimate episode what we're about to find out about what happened in the past and his part in it. He's been concerned about how this was all going to go and he's only gotten MORE uncomfortable as the series has progressed.
But, and as always, what do we get to really know? Who's story is being remembered?
Louis's true and living history?
A flawed truth that Louis remembers in fragments patched over by imperfect logic? (how memory maybe really works?)
A false truth fed to him by Armand?
How about a messy patchwork of all the fucked up above.
Lestat is back. Out for blood or on the apology tour, not exactly sure. The Brat Prince himself treading the boards of the theater he helped to establish, what a sight. Lestat loves the show, he loves performance. It's definitely one of the characteristics carried over from the book. Lestat is petty and savage and a liar. He makes himself a victim, but why? What is the value of it? The trial is a farce and Lestat feels wronged and wants revenge. He wants to be as important to Louis as Claudia is. He wants to be loved in return because he is a terrible person and he knows it, but also, Lestat de Lioncourt feels incredibly deep. For all of his toxicity, Lestat was written as a character who loves to the detriment of his own best interest. And he loves Louis. I remember them from the books as acknowledging that they are that couple who are meant to be together but never CAN be together because they are too toxic to each other.
"I couldn't force him to love me. I couldn't force him to return my affections … and so … I broke him." TOXIC and PETTY AS FUCK.
Stories told by the heartbroken. What lies do you make up to explain and justify a thing that happened so that you are not culpable?
Lestat in this episode and the next is also prepping us for the shift that must, to some degree, come with Season 3. How do you turn a villain into an anti-hero into a hero? Lestat is the hero of The Vampire Lestat and of The Vampire Chronicles. I think the show runners are starting that redemption arc now. Not the smallest part of which is Lestat as an unknown quantity, uncontrollable if he doesn't want to be.
Daniel's voice is honest and unnervingly direct. He strips the window dressing off of everything, exposing nuance to a critical light that leaves everything sordid and as ugly as reality just is. In that there is, perhaps, the closest we will ever get to the truth.
Arguably, if it weren't for Santiago we might forget that alot of this is bullshit. Angry, jealous, manipulative, Santiago's performance during the trial forces the viewer to confront the reality of a crafted narrative. He knows they're lying and spitting scripted facts skewed for effect. It was brilliant to watch the bounce between his goals and Lestat's constant slide into melancholia. HAHAHA! A hurricane, indeed. That guy was SO. ANNOYED.
Episode 7 continues with the manipulation of the storyline made as clear and explicit as it ever has been. The way the music is used during the trial, Lestat's lies and half-truths, the animation running on the screen. We're being beaten over the head with this blur between performance and reality.
Watching the re-tread of how Claudia became a vampire makes me me feel like I need to go back to watch Season 1. The gaslighting is real! And then Louis' capitulation to the differences in the way he remembers it happened and the way that Lestat says it happens is perfect! Tell it Lestat's way, for the book. Because he DOESN'T REMEMBER. There are, after all, three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
Louis' memory has been so tampered with. By time, by Armand's manipulations, by madness, and trauma.
I still maintain that Armand is trash.
I thought the title would be a quote from Louis who in admission of his own powerlessness laments Claudia's death as an unavoidable failure on his part. That it is Armand who has ownership of the line changes the story, as always. I could not prevent it suggests that there was nothing that he could do, but the reality, as has so often been the case with Armand, is that he did not want to. The entire sham trial was preventable had he chosen Louis over the coven to begin with. The unfortunate reality is that he, like Lestat, despised Claudia for Louis' adoration of her. He was jealous and would forever be and the only way that he could have exactly what he wanted was to get rid of her. Doing it this way, he gets to blame the coven and Lestat. Arguably, Lestat for all of his machinations and insecurities, his petulant rage, actually loves and was loved by Louis in a way that Armand, despite Louis's modern protestations, never can or will be.
I'm so in love with the way the story is told that I don't talk too much about Claudia. A BOOK could be written about the silencing of marginalized female voices. Claudia, despite her diaries, has no real voice in this. She is an assemblage of half-remembrances and a yellow dress pinned to the wall. It makes it so much more poignant and electric then that she curses every last person sitting in that theater before she burns. There is no need to hide that or shade it. It was not directed at Louis. Armand's willingness to allow Claudia to burn while not doing the same for Louis is tragic. And again, all of this could have been unnecessary. I've said before that I don't think Armand was ever much of an alpha.
Oh my Fucking Gods! I have a hard on for that shit because who do you trust, what's the truth, how do we understand the story we are being told? I love the act of identifying loosely patched over edges and pulling at loose threads. There's a lie here, someone is playing all up in my face and I want the answers! And a really good writer who implements an unreliable narrator leaves tells all the fuck over the place. After all ....
"You cannot script a hurricane."
Okay, here we are in episode seven, still circling the drain of who has ownership of the story? Louis is the vampire who is being "interviewed" with the occasional footnote offered by Armand. This is in tension with the book in which Louis's is the only voice. What has changed, to make this a richer story, is how introducing Armand's perspective now turns everything on its head. It's an explicit kind of dig at the way that interviews are curated by both the interviewer and the interviewee. What are you willing to discuss? What's on the record? What's off the record? How much external research and material will be introduced? How does the story survive interpretation? What's the fucking goal here?
I'm thinking a little about the Andrew McCarthy documentary about the Brat Pack and how one New York Magazine article in 1985 turned the lives of a group of up and coming actors sideways. David Blum, who wrote the article, had an agenda. He had a point to prove and the article wasn't especially flattering. Watching the doc it becomes clear that Emilio Estevez had a different idea about what that article was supposed to be about. But such is the nature of the interview. In the end, the story shared, in all of its limited, constructed dance of questions and answers is still subject to editing, the perspective of the interviewer, and interpretation by the reader.
Here, Louis has a point to make. Exactly what that is? Who really knows. He does the first interview as a kind of love letter/suicide note to the world before he walks into the sun. This "re-do" might still be such. It also might be his attempt to understand what happened. He has questions, he knows there's holes and somewhere in the back of his mind, he knows that he can't and doesn't trust Armand. He also could want to, as I think he states in S1E1, provide an accurate accounting of what vampires are like.
Honestly, I'm on the self-discovery train.
I love how when Louis gets angry, and he has been getting angrier and angrier, he snaps hard on people. The way he shushes Daniel, "I am speaking," was delicious. Armand's discomfort was apparent and I had to wonder given this is the season's penultimate episode what we're about to find out about what happened in the past and his part in it. He's been concerned about how this was all going to go and he's only gotten MORE uncomfortable as the series has progressed.
But, and as always, what do we get to really know? Who's story is being remembered?
Louis's true and living history?
A flawed truth that Louis remembers in fragments patched over by imperfect logic? (how memory maybe really works?)
A false truth fed to him by Armand?
How about a messy patchwork of all the fucked up above.
Lestat is back. Out for blood or on the apology tour, not exactly sure. The Brat Prince himself treading the boards of the theater he helped to establish, what a sight. Lestat loves the show, he loves performance. It's definitely one of the characteristics carried over from the book. Lestat is petty and savage and a liar. He makes himself a victim, but why? What is the value of it? The trial is a farce and Lestat feels wronged and wants revenge. He wants to be as important to Louis as Claudia is. He wants to be loved in return because he is a terrible person and he knows it, but also, Lestat de Lioncourt feels incredibly deep. For all of his toxicity, Lestat was written as a character who loves to the detriment of his own best interest. And he loves Louis. I remember them from the books as acknowledging that they are that couple who are meant to be together but never CAN be together because they are too toxic to each other.
"I couldn't force him to love me. I couldn't force him to return my affections … and so … I broke him." TOXIC and PETTY AS FUCK.
Stories told by the heartbroken. What lies do you make up to explain and justify a thing that happened so that you are not culpable?
Lestat in this episode and the next is also prepping us for the shift that must, to some degree, come with Season 3. How do you turn a villain into an anti-hero into a hero? Lestat is the hero of The Vampire Lestat and of The Vampire Chronicles. I think the show runners are starting that redemption arc now. Not the smallest part of which is Lestat as an unknown quantity, uncontrollable if he doesn't want to be.
Daniel's voice is honest and unnervingly direct. He strips the window dressing off of everything, exposing nuance to a critical light that leaves everything sordid and as ugly as reality just is. In that there is, perhaps, the closest we will ever get to the truth.
Arguably, if it weren't for Santiago we might forget that alot of this is bullshit. Angry, jealous, manipulative, Santiago's performance during the trial forces the viewer to confront the reality of a crafted narrative. He knows they're lying and spitting scripted facts skewed for effect. It was brilliant to watch the bounce between his goals and Lestat's constant slide into melancholia. HAHAHA! A hurricane, indeed. That guy was SO. ANNOYED.
Episode 7 continues with the manipulation of the storyline made as clear and explicit as it ever has been. The way the music is used during the trial, Lestat's lies and half-truths, the animation running on the screen. We're being beaten over the head with this blur between performance and reality.
Watching the re-tread of how Claudia became a vampire makes me me feel like I need to go back to watch Season 1. The gaslighting is real! And then Louis' capitulation to the differences in the way he remembers it happened and the way that Lestat says it happens is perfect! Tell it Lestat's way, for the book. Because he DOESN'T REMEMBER. There are, after all, three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth.
Louis' memory has been so tampered with. By time, by Armand's manipulations, by madness, and trauma.
I still maintain that Armand is trash.
I thought the title would be a quote from Louis who in admission of his own powerlessness laments Claudia's death as an unavoidable failure on his part. That it is Armand who has ownership of the line changes the story, as always. I could not prevent it suggests that there was nothing that he could do, but the reality, as has so often been the case with Armand, is that he did not want to. The entire sham trial was preventable had he chosen Louis over the coven to begin with. The unfortunate reality is that he, like Lestat, despised Claudia for Louis' adoration of her. He was jealous and would forever be and the only way that he could have exactly what he wanted was to get rid of her. Doing it this way, he gets to blame the coven and Lestat. Arguably, Lestat for all of his machinations and insecurities, his petulant rage, actually loves and was loved by Louis in a way that Armand, despite Louis's modern protestations, never can or will be.
I'm so in love with the way the story is told that I don't talk too much about Claudia. A BOOK could be written about the silencing of marginalized female voices. Claudia, despite her diaries, has no real voice in this. She is an assemblage of half-remembrances and a yellow dress pinned to the wall. It makes it so much more poignant and electric then that she curses every last person sitting in that theater before she burns. There is no need to hide that or shade it. It was not directed at Louis. Armand's willingness to allow Claudia to burn while not doing the same for Louis is tragic. And again, all of this could have been unnecessary. I've said before that I don't think Armand was ever much of an alpha.
