come appraise me

Lestat: Oh, okay, got it...

-Five milliseconds after Marius exits-

Because yeah what a nasty mean thing to say, it definitely is an insult, but also, not really?? I mean it’s more than that. That one line functions fundamentally as a substitute for what amounts to paragraphs in the vampire lestat of Marius and Lestat talking about Armand. this one line in the show has so much subtext doing the heavy lifting. Here’s a telling bit from the book that I feel is relevant:

“Rotten” as an insult is so so specific. “Rotten” infers that something that is now decayed and putrid was formerly fresh, pure, unspoiled, ripe, gleaming with potential. but it was left out to spoil, abandoned, or ruined, and now it’s gone bad, moldering, sour, repulsive. there’s no coming back from rot. a rotten fruit is tainted beyond redemption, it would’ve been delicious once, but now it’s sickening, it’s foul, it’s rot.

And not just rotten, Rotten boy. boy. “boy” that is a 27 year old man that has been alive for over 300 years. It’s belittling, but it’s belittling in the way parents are towards their children. I would go so far as to say there’s an undercurrent of affection in it. Oh Armand, that rotten boy, that grimy little devil. Rotten because Marius left him to rot, rotten because it's too late, the food has already gone bad. Marius made a horrible mistake, making Armand, and now he’s gone bad, he’s no good, he’s to be thrown out for the rats and the flies. But he’s a boy. He’s his boy, was his boy, his fruit, his seed that he grew and flowered and would have eaten if he hadn’t let it go rotten.

SHEILA ATIM as Akasha

And it's got me thinking a lot about humor and the way it's used in The Vampire Lestat/Interview with the Vampire. It's something I connect really deeply to because there's not really much separation between tragedy and humor the show in the way a lot of media will have funny moments and sad moments, and sometimes the two will mingle, but there's something very visceral about how tragedy and comedy interact in The Vampire Lestat.

I had a therapist once that said our sessions were different than any others he's had, and I asked him, "Is it because I call you an asshole all the time?"

He said, "No, that actually happens a lot." What was different, apparently, is that I'd be crying and talking about big traumatic shit and really digging into it, and all of a sudden I'd make a joke about it, and we'd both start laughing, and then we'd keep going, and it didn't detract from the therapy.

This has always kinda been my way, and it's why I used to do comedy and why I'm toying with the idea of going back. It's frustrating when people act like humor is simply a deflection. Humor CAN be a deflection or a defense mechanism, but it is also a way of processing other emotions. It's a way of processing major things including abuse and tragedy.

Which brings me back to Gabriella. I keep seeing people being upset about the scene with Jarda and calling it unnecessary, too graphic and too long. Skipping over some of the prudishness here, the "too long" comment baffles me because the length of the scene and the scene itself is very clearly played for comedy. And I thought it was fucking hilarious. I thought Gabriella was hilarious.

AND at the same time, we're getting Lestat's reactions, and we KNOW the deeper aspects of how she's tormenting him. So, the scene is still funny, but it has layers of tragedy and horror as well. THEN, in the next episode we find out how the scene mirrors a pivotal moment in Gabriella's abuse of Lestat, and it brings MORE layers of tragedy and horror to it.

And the scene itself is still funny. Gabriella's still funny in it. And the horror and tragedy is still there alongside the comedy.

This is an approach, too, that I think is very much in line with the books. The Vampire Lestat, the book, is full of trauma and pain, AND the first page is THE TEMPLATE for the oft-parodied My Immortal fanfiction intro. And, indeed, there is no Lestat-narrated novel in which he is not compelled to describe himself in horny detail. A lot about this book series is funny.

And Gabriella's character gets to be funny in the show. And abusive, and resentful, and selfish, and traumatized, and loving, and hateful, and sexual, and manipulative, and ambitious, and all these beautiful, horrible, INTERESTING layers just like ALL of the characters.

But she gets called one note. And her gender nonconformity gets shoved aside by fans because it doesn't fit in simple boxes. All these layers get ignored so people can shout "misogynistic writing" because she's expressing herself sexually just like ALL the characters do, and her relationship to sexuality is different than in the books just like ALL the characters' are because of the changes made to the adaptation itself.

And I think one thing people are not handling well about her is that she gets to be funny too. And I think some of that is definitely that she's not a man. And believe me I have plenty of personal experience with that too. But she's funny.

Gabriella is EVERYTHING. And she's funny too.