Aren't we so honored to have Sam and Jacob as our Lestat and Louis!
They just have such a deep understanding of their characters, which is in part because of the amazing writing and the writers who do such a good job at explaining the narrative, but also because of their commitment to have a deep personal understanding of Lestat and Louis respectively.
Jacob's comments regarding the true scene of Claudia's turning and his being adamant on not kneeling was just so. . . it was perfect. I'm not an actress, but I imagine that trying to portray a character who, as a vampire experiences emotion to a heightened degree, is pleading with the one person in his world who can to do him this favor is challenging. But I think all of his hesitations about kneeling are actually every single reason why kneeling was perfect. Even if nobody asked Jacob to do so. Even if everything in Jacob's fibre told him it was wrong. Because it absolutely was wrong. But it worked for this dark tale.
Kneeling demonstrates how much of a low point this was for Louis in a visual sense. He feels as if he has no control over his life. That he is beholden to Lestat. And that not only has domestic connotations, but it also harkens back to the ever present racial themes that season 1 did not shy away from. Which I suspect is one of Jacob's main concerns.
But I also think that it is a demonstration of love and trust. He can be on his knees, and bare his soul to the love of his life because he is the only person who could possibly understand him in this moment. There is desperation, but I think part of Louis knew that Lestat would not refuse him.
I don't even know if that makes any sense. But, I do think that this show is one which has not, and frankly cannot work by shying away from challenging and provoking themes. And I think all of his hesitations justify why it was the right thing to do. It was beautifully uncomfortable.
And Sam's beautiful reaction to the kneel also influences the interpretation of the kneels significance.
Beautiful work!
Sam's interview was so intriguing to me due primarily to his struggle to navigate the questions without revealing too much about the upcoming season. Which, Sam has always done such a good job giving us enough information without giving anything away, such that when I revisit his comments after seeing the final product, it adds so much context.
One area where I think his omissions (or lies. or maybe he just doesn't know because it hasn't been written yet) were most profound was when he was asked again about why Lestat was at the trial. His PR answer stating that Lestat is there because "he has to be" is not satisfying. And I am 1000% sure it's not satisfying because there is a reason that he can't reveal yet because it would ruin the story Rolin is building.
But there are two key differences about his repeated answer this time around.
First, before he's even asked this question, in answering the previous question he revealed that in season 1, when he questioned Lestat's actions and motivations, Alan Taylor (director and EP in S1) told him to "do what serves the story." This was due to the show's constant play with the concept of memory, and unreliable narration, and "truth." Early on in season 1 the viewer could not grasp that because it was the very beginning of the story where the inconsistencies were yet to be revealed. Logically, this made it difficult to understand what appeared to be uncharacteristic actions or motivations from Lestat, especially with Rolin's departure from the source material. Only upon seeing more of the story do we begin to comprehend Lestat's motivations and actions.
All of that is to say, Sam is basically saying that he was dissatisfied with Lestat's reasoning for being at the trial when he read and performed the script. And likely still is perplexed. But he relied on Alan's great advice given all the way back in the early episodes of S1: trust the story. In order to get Sam to trust the story, Hannah had to write him the actual trial script, which obviously helped him give a career defining performance, but doesn't answer the question as to why he was there to begin with.
Second, Sam reminds us that the book gives us an explanation as to why he was there, but makes it clear that in Rolin's adaptation that rationale may not be the same. This is pretty damning. That is not to say that Lestat won't have a similar reasoning, but there is no way that the exact book reasoning is what Rolin is going to run with. Because honestly, that reasoning doesn't really work very well within the context of this adaptation imo.
Sam also harkens on the monstrousness of Lestat and his fellow older vampires. This leads me to believe (I am in full spec mode from this point on ig) that Lestat is not healed after his "death" by Armand's blood, but that he convalesced using Akasha's blood or some derivative of some sort.
To be fair, this isn't some brilliantly thoughtful answer. Lestat explicitly told us this in 2x08. And I suspect the reason Rolin felt comfortable doing so is because 75% of viewers have no idea who TF that is (again, Lestat called y'all out) or that Akasha is even a being and not some magic potion or some shit. And those of us who did know assumed Lestat was referring to their initial meeting as told in TVL. But maybe he wasn't.
Granted, I am not a book expert myself. I have only read IWTV and TVL. But I am a glutton for spoilers, so I've picked up some important tid bits. Not all of them tho.
Here is where my speculation really goes off the rails, due to my lack of knowing the source material, although Rolin isn't following it exactly, so that shouldn't be too much of an issue!
For my Akasha theory to work, Rolin has to jumble up the timeline a bit. Because Lestat first meets Akasha shortly before going to New Orleans. It is then where he drinks from the fount. In the book, Lestat needs an extra shot of old vamp blood to fully recover. Maybe Rolin has Lestat seek out Akasha instead and adds an additional meeting between the two before the trial in Europe.
But this theory complicates why Lestat was at the trial. I don't think that the coven, nor Armand are able to control Lestat. Imo, post-war Armand is not as powerful as post-war Lestat. There has been nothing to suggest that as of now and Lestat has the blood of Akasha coursing his veins, unlike Armand. I think Lestat is in Paris (1) to ensure that Louis survives the trial (unfortunately at Claudia's expense), (2) as part of his centuries-long beef with Armand, and (3) a secret third thing that I have yet to figure out yet.
Because Lestat knew that Louis and Claudia were in Europe, and his love for both vampires would surely compel him to seek them out. And when he finally was apprised of the situation, he would get involved without hesitation.
I think the secret third thing is going to involve several ancient vampires that we will meet in season 3. I doubt that we will get a full glimpse of the more overarching, and existential machinations at work (the stuff that happens in Body Thief, Memnoch, Prince Lestat, etc. Again, I don't have a full understanding of those details, but I do know that it involves Those Who Must Be Kept and other supreme vampires).
I do think that the tower fight between Armand and Lestat happens though. Because Armand thinks he's tough shit. Lestat definitely gets sent back to NOLA with his tail tucked in after the Gremlin successfully manipulates the love of Lestat's life to despise him.
So yeah. This took me two days to write. I hope somebody can make some sense out of my rambling.
