Untitled

As a black man he wasn't given his fair share of the profits ( "15 % for all the work"). And the white business men rationalized this exploitation as reasonable: saying they provide the 'capital' and he's the 'labor'.

Louis is rightfully upset about this- but doesn't see his own hypocrisy. Louis provides the 'capital', while his 'girls' do ALL the labor at the brothel, and he gives them 5% of the business to share amongst them selves. This percentage was only given to them-because Louis was finding a loophole behind a new ordianance . Alderman Anderson praises Louis for this - calling it "pure capitalism", and even corrects Alderman- Fenwich , who initially thought it sounded like a "Bolshevik (communist) scam."

Louis granted his girls 5% of the business, because it enabled them to file a writ of injunction to halt a racist ordinance (that would have segregated the quarter and thus sabotaged the Azaelia). This strategy only worked for a short time. According to the ordinance “all prostitutes of color or Black race would have to move their business across Canal Street.” We see how the white businessmen around Louis are also 'economic vampires' who exploit the black populace in the city , through various means. The same businessmen who wrote these racist ordinances, were Patrons at the Azelia (who fetishized black women). Then they put laws in place to sabotage black owned businesses (like the Azaelia) in order to buy the land/properties for cheap. ( "15 cents on the dollar"). It's pure economic exploitation , racism, and gentrification!

Louis eventually snaps and kills Fenwich , the businessman who weaponized racism, his wealth, and political connections to close down the Azaelea . Louis' actions inadvertently cause a racist mob to storm the neighborhood ( leading to the Azaelea being lit on fire, the premature death of Claudia, along with the deaths and suffering of many black victims in the area). Louis blames himself, but Lestat says all he did was give the white rioters an "excuse" to " go for the throat". This is significant as it- thematically connects white supremacy, capitalism and ' economic VAMPIRISM' together. As predatory systems often hurt and target the poor and marginalized first (and the most severely) .

To a certain degree Louis' HUNGER for money -is a trauma response. Louis was raised in wealth, but lived under a racist system where wealth was often the only means to garner some form of protection and power. He'd never want to lose it, so no matter how much he makes it'll probably never be enough for him ...

We see the re-emergence of 'business Louis' in s2 when he shows Armand the Wols’ painting:

The painter (Wols) actually died of food poisoning in 1950, so Louis probably did sell it for 30x it's value .

In the present storyline, Louis is part of the 1%! And (with Armand) has almost a billion dollars. Daniel wasn't exaggerating when he compared Louis to Jeff Bezos. The fact Louis moves to Dubai is also incredibly telling on a symbolic level. Critics dub Dubai a "capitalistic nightmare". It's a haven for the wealthiest people in the world -due to having no income tax, no capital gains tax, and no VAT. Only 15% of dubai are native residents : "It's dubai, Mr molloy, no one's a native." Dubai is infamous for 'modern day slavery' and 'abusive work practices' of migrant workers. Indian workers are the largest national group among them. Trafficking & sexual slavery of women & children migrants is also alarmingly common in the country . In the Talamasca show, we even see Daniel describe Dubai as a city of " BLOOD & slave labor"

And the fact Armand is Indian, pretends to be one of Louis' employees in Dubai , and is displayed in front of a painting about slavery is certainly an interesting symbolic choice (given how Dubai is infamous for enslaving Indian migrants-and Armand was a slave himself).

It always rubbed me the wrong way when fans/viewers gleefully laugh at the head-canon that 'Louis will take all the money in the divorce'. I hope that isn't the case, because the optics would be (in my opinion) really bad . Especially, because ...Armand worked for that money too!

I'm not saying they would go in that direction. Honestly,I would be shocked if Armand didn't have some hidden bank account (of crypto) at the very least ...and his own unsavory business endeavors too . But, If they go that route . To me, it would show Louis did the same thing many rich expats in Dubai do -use slave labor. Louis would have essentially used Armand ,the former slave for 'free labor' , and once again exploited the hard work of a sex worker to garner a fortune for himself. It would also loosely echo his great-grandfather/book counterpart too. But then again, it would certainly make Daniel's comment of " 144 years and you're still Louis the pimp" have a different meaning.

Daniel originally said this line because he was comparing himself to miss Lily. Daniel: "You're still Louis the pimp. paying a WHORE to sit in a room and talk with you … 10 million that's my WHORE number." Daniel , like Lily, was a sex worker . And Louis PAYED both of them to "sit in a room and talk to him”. And in the end, both of them were killed by Louis' lovers off-screen. History repeating...

It's certainly interesting that the 128 boys Louis had sex with and killed were implied to be sex workers that Louis "payed" via drinks, transportation, and dr*gs (similar to Daniel) .It's also very telling Louis swoops in with his credit card when the bartender says Daniel already owes the bar money . Louis: what's your question? Daniel: "we had drinks, you payed. we cabbed to your place on Divisdero, you payed. Did we... fufill my side of the social contract?"

We also see Armand use money (crypto) as a way to lure in victims in a similar manner. In Dubai, Louis says he hasn't killed since 2000 . He states this as we meet Damek (a Russian worker who regularly donates blood to Louis). Louis probably pays him quite a bit for fresh blood & anonymity. But it's also important to note blood-donation centers (at least in the States) are purposefully placed in low-income areas. Even in real -life people are exploiting and taking the BLOOD of the poor. Of course what Louis is doing is still much better than sucking the poor dry, but it'll still an exploitation of the poor nonetheless.

On a somewhat unrelated note, Anderson said in s3 Louis will be expanding his businesses and "commodifying vampirism". He's already done so to a certain degree. So I'm curious of what that will entail in s3 ? It's implied he did hire vampires in s3 for his new business endeavors (like his lawyer/ Dr etc) : a worker that can never die or get sick would be a dream come true to a capitalist businessman .But ... theoretically an existential nightmare for said worker. He is "the first ever vampire capitalist' so it'll be interesting to explore what that means within the show's narrative...

Lestat, the aristocracy & the french revolution:

Lestat (was an noble) that lived through the French Revolution .At this time, the French nobility enjoyed many tax exemptions. As a consequence the tax burden fell disproportionately on those least able to bear it, the peasantry. Between a third and a half of a peasant’s income were siphoned off for taxes.

King Louis XVI & Queen Marie Antoinette were also known for hosting lavish balls that contributed to public discontent during a time of financial crisis - becoming a symbol of royal excess. Similarly, the "ball" Louis & Lestat threw was described as "an extravagant waste of money." At the ball, Lestat dressed up as the "king of mardi gras" who was compared to the french queen Marie Antoinette via the 'let them eat cake' quote). Even though most historians don't believe she said this,the comment still represented the class division at that time : the french populace were starving while the rich aristocracy were living in luxury (and throwing parties) .

The phrase "Let them eat cake" was commonly associated with Marie Antoinette during the Flour Wars : periods of bread shortages (shortly before the French Revolution). A year into King Louis XVI 's reign he appointed an economist who removed gov regulations on grain prices. Switching from a "moral economy" (which had placed regulations on grain prices since the middle ages ) to a 'lassies-faire economy" : which advocated minimal government intervention on business and markets. This led to riots and mass starvation , as bread prices skyrocketed: and a single-loaf of bread cost 70-90% of a worker's daily salary. The price of bread was of the utmost importance to the French lower classes, as bread made up 3/4ths of their diet (and spikes in their prices could lead to starvation). Under the king's orders: rioters were executed, imprisoned, and even given life sentences as " galley slaves". The lower classes blamed the king, and the upper classes blamed the riots on the "moral decadence of the poor, believing that the poor desired chaos for chaos' sake'". smh...

Armand (who also lived through the revolution) references Robespierre who lead the charge in king Louis xvi's execution. Possible foreshadowing Armand directing the execution of Louis via the trial play? Robespierre was a prominent member of the Committee of public safety, which oversaw executions and trials during the 'reign of terror' (1793-1794). Trials were short (and defendants accused of anti-revolutionary sentiments, were not allowed legal consult). Sadly reminiscent of Claudia & Louis' not being able to properly defend themselves at their short-lived trial. It's also possible Armand had some fondness for the political figure as Robespierre vehemently denounced the slave trade and disagreed with plantation owner's who claimed ending it would "destroy the economy of the colonies" . French colonies at the time , predominately enslaved people originally from Africa and Madagascar (but there were records of some French companies also enslaving Indians at this time as well).

In 1794, only a few months after slavery was abolished in the colonies - Robespierre was executed. And 8 years after his death, slavery in the colonies was reinstated. For a lot of people, the French Revolution conjures up images of wealthy nobles being led to the guillotine: since the King & Queen were executed in this manner. "After the French Revolution, the French elite wore red chokers to mimic a BLOODY NECK WOUND, resembling those executed via the guillotine " Lestat in the s3 teaser wore a red chocker-which emulates the neck wound he received during the ball (where he was likened to a king & Marie Antoinette).

"But , the perception that the Revolution primarily targeted the aristocracy is a common misconception, largely influenced by high-profile executions & 19th-century memoirs from the elite." Most casualties of the French Revolution & guillotine were actually commoners (85% were non-noble , 8.5% noble, and 6.5 % were clergy)." The class metaphor gets a bit muddled since Lestat was a (poor) nobleman . And he only gained his wealth via magnus in 1794 . Lestat the (poor) human died during the Revolution (via a bloody neck wound). But he gained wealth, lost his humanity , and become a wealthy aristocrat with "seemingly endless capital".

"By the 1800s , the red chokers that once represented guillotine victims gained a new symbolic meaning and started to be associated with prostitution. The connection between red chokers and prostitution persisted into the late 19th century , despite the accessory's simultaneous popularity among royalty and the upper class."We see Baby jenks (who in the books was a prostitute) wear a red choker to emulate the wealthy nobleman Lestat : who attempts to drain and kill her on stage.

In the books she was of a poor socio-economic status and forced into prostitution as a young child. And in the show is an addict. Louis: "who would come looking if another drug addicted homophile disappeared?" In the past, Louis & Lestat both generally targeted the "unfortunates" which were most likely sex workers , dr*g addicts, and the poor (people who had little power or social connections; that would be discarded by society). The rich (vampires) preying & sucking the life out of the 'modern day peasants'."

Lestat in the books/film adaption used to kill prostitutes- and in the show he did the same with miss lily (after having sex with her) . Similar to Louis draining the drug addicted male sex workers he had sex with in the 70s. And akin to the failed draining of drug-addicted sex workers like baby Jenks & Daniel . All the 'sex workers' in the show are either literally drained , or figuratively drained for economic benefit. Which brings us to-

Marius & the alarming normalization of the 'slavery economy' :

This section is a bit speculative since we don't know all the details of Marius & Amadeo's dynamic within the show. All we have is the books, historical context, and small references within the show (along with my theories and speculation of how they may adapt their storyline). But hear me out-

There is some evidence that Armand was first sold via the Silk Road (in Uzbekistan). Why Armand says the Uzbek phrase “asr namozi” (in front of the 'slave auction' painting) . Indian merchants would often stop there to drop off captured slaves (as India and Uzbekistan would trade often with each other via the Silk Road). Uzbekistan was known as a “bridge between the east and the west”: where those from Europe, North Africa , and Asia would do trade . Uzbekistan's trade cities were notorious for slave trading- and because of their location in Central Asia- traders from Venice and other parts of the world would often stop there as a resting stop . Which could explain how Armand went from India to Venice.

Renaissance Venice was notorious for slavery , and its economy relied on slave labor . Similar to Ancient Rome (where Marius was born ) - slavery in Venice was alarmingly normalized . For rich families it was a status symbol to have at least a few slaves serving them in the home. And other wealthy families would considered it odd if these aristocrats didn’t have any servants or slaves. most businesses and churches would also use foreign slaves for free labor . It was even common for boys and women to be sold into sexual slavery or as concubines . Slaves were also common in artist’s quarters (like Marius’).

Amadeo being “donated” to Venetian artists and used for Christian iconography is even more sinister (due to the fact churches in Venice commonly owned slaves). Then you add the fact that Marius was essentially a pimp who purchased a child from a brothel : then forced him to do sexual favors for his "friends", since he in Marius' words "had a skill" . Marius literally used Amadeo as 'bartering chip' to get things - treating him as if he was currency.

Centuries before he met Amadeo , Marius owned other slaves. He also whipped Amadeo and said “get back to work or I’ll whip you some more” (after Amadeo had already become a vampire). And Amadeo thinks to himself "I'm a slave to a tyrant." In Venice , it wasn't uncommon for slave owners to free slaves in their wills . But what if you & your slave owner were immortal? It would be an existential horror.

There’s also the fact that while in Europe , Armand was also mistaken as Romani (and called a Romani slur : gyp*y) . The Romani were enslaved in Europe for centuries. There was even an old myth (based on anti-Roma sentiment) which said Roma were enslaved to vampires . Similar to the Roma slaves Dracula owned. And similar to Amadeo being enslaved to Marius .

Marius in the books , also had a palazzo filled with young boys who were being educated and trained to be painters. When it comes to the boys, we learn the most about Riccardo. Marius BOUGHT riccardo and also whipped him . And upon Amadeo meeting him for the first time, he thinks “his skin is darker than the others.” So in the show he may also be a foreign slave (or possibly Romani). Which could add another layer to why the 2 were so close and best friends.

Most of the the boys aged out , and left the palazzo - to go to university, get jobs , became artists, get married and start families. But theoretically people like Amadeo and Ricardo wouldn’t be able to do so. And since Marius would often leave the palazzo for long periods of time: they’d (theoretically) be stuck in the palazzo and in charge of taking care of the young boys, cleaning the studio , and managing the art business while he was gone (aka free labor) .

Profit over Journalistic integrity & Art:

As a young man , Daniel used to interview people who "fell through the cracks" (and were discarded by society and rarely given a voice to vocalize their perspectives). But as his career took off , his "specialty" was no longer "people of no importance'". As he got older, he only interviewed big wigs who'd benefited his career : disgraced cardinals, dictators, politicians, and shady business men .Voices that were already overrepresented in society and media.

Daniel later profits off the tragedy of Louis & Claudia (without their consent to share their story). Which is symbolic of how many journalists will often exploit others' tragedies, with little care of how publishing these stories will impact the individuals involved. Daniel, (like many news outlets) publishes & sensationalizes others' tragedies & traumas for profit and notoriety. Even if the individuals involved explicitly say 'no' to their stories being published. Or (like in true crime), the person can't consent because they've already passed. Louis & Daniel both PROFITED monetarily from the suffering of others, just in very different ways.

Similarly, Armand & the coven SOLD Claudia’s pain via the infantilizing baby lulu play (which was a “unmitigated hit” ). Later Claudia/Louis' story was sold for profit via the (sold out) trial play. Claudia only consented to Madeleine reading her diaries and was upset when others attempted to read them. But, the theatre members read her diaries without her consent, retold her story, and then handed the diaries over to the audience (and Daniel does the same via his '"best selling" book). The fact her story is also still filtered via men in her life that failed her (Armand & Louis) is also significant: as they edited her diaries, similar to the talamasca editing the book. The trial-play, Daniel’s book, and the tour guide's story are all warped retellings of the main story : and all these versions were sold to an audience for a profit.

Of course, they're not the only ones who profited off of people's deaths/pain...

Now , in s3, Daniel will attempt to profit off of Lestat's story . And he'll be the "director" of the documentary (similar to his 'director' maker). And of course, documentaries are prone to sensationalism and can easily fall into the category of 'exploitation for profit'. Especially, when it's implied Lestat is already not mentally well. You could argue that Lestat's management team, the paparazi, and Daniel's documentary all illustrate 'the exploitative evils of capitalism and Hollywood' (as they're all profiting off a celebrity who is in clear mental decline and needs help). Which of course, has happened in real life...

Sam Reid, jokingly has described his preparation for the role by saying he is "taking a lot of drugs, and they’re flying me around on a private plane and I’m just living like a permanent rock star," indicating his character's descent into a self-destructive, drug-fueled bender. Again , similar to many celebrities irl. No one helps them... the tour just continues & the camera keeps rolling.

Lestat : the music industry & exploitation of fans (in s3?)

Lestat is embodying the stereotype of "sex, dr*gs and rock-and roll." In the teasers, it's implied that Lestat's fans think that his 'vampire persona' is a fictional bit. And he'll most likely get victims voluntarily on stage to drain them because of it (as these fans are under the assumption it's all fake and a bit). And the audience will cheer on their deaths assuming it's part of the act. Akin to the humans being drained by the vampiric theatre on stage in Paris.

If Lestat does this, it begs the question: will higher ups ,and his lawyer, cover up for Lestat if he k*lls any girls on stage (since Lestat is profitable to them)? Similar to real life managers/marketing execs trying to cover up for celebs doing horrific crimes ? Will his fans ignore rumors of groupies going missing at concerts? Similar to how many fans of charismatic rock stars will ignore rumors of predation/ab*se if they like the music enough? Of course, this isn't confirmed, just speculation (but such a storyline would further the themes of 'exploitation for profit')

Iwtv generally shows the theme of 'economic exploitation' in various ways : through slavery, sex work, gentrification, journalism, and the entertainment industry as a whole. Along with displaying how significant wealth-disparities, can cause people to have apathy to the economic exploitation, suffering, and even deaths of the poor.

Thanks to everyone who made it this far - I know it’s a long read 😅. I also hope it’s clear I love all the main characters (but will still drag all of them for a thematic analysis) .

The play also foreshadows Claudia and Madeleine's demises at the hands of the coven.

In s1 , Lestat says other vampires will want to kill Claudia because she's "built like a bird." And in the play, baby lulu is likened to a "little birdie" . Madeline's surname Eparvier is "a vernacular name for a small bird of prey". This is a hint Claudeline would become the coven's "prey". Madeleine before her turning even mentions the song lyric " my heart is an island bird". Hinting at how Madeleine & Claudia love each other, but also how the 2 would perish in the sun .

We also have the title of the play itself: "My baby loves windows", which has very dark implications in relation to Claudia's story.

Baby Lulu's death was also reminiscent of Paul's su*cide. Claudia at times was a surrogate sibling to Louis. And Louis had to watch his " sister" mimic his brother’s death. Lulu's death on stage foreshadowed Claudia's death on the stage. The special effect of Lulu's ghost leaving her dead body (could also be a hint that ghost-claudia will be canon like how it was in the books).Although , I'm curious whether Claudia's ghost will be more a manifestation of Lestat's guilt, rather than a literal ghost.

The title of the next play was called "Enduring for Guido" (Guido being Italian for "leader") :

Strangely enough, after Armand does cancel Claudia's infantilizing play. The coven (seemingly?) makes a different play that mocks Armand's bio age and trauma in Italy.

Even the "ticking clock" was something Armand likened to his human death within his novel ...

This play is also loosely based off a different play: Waiting for Godot. Weirdly enough when Armands tells Louis of this play in the 40s, and when he describes it to Daniel in the present...he (seemingly?) glosses over the coven's taunting him via the play. Later in this episode he even says he doesn't want to share his "shame" with Daniel. Which is an interesting word to use. Since santiago says before he gets on stage he reads people's minds and finds their "shame." We also know at least one member of the coven (Romaine) overheard Armand’s backstory... and in that same episode we see several members including Santiago spy on Armand, Louis, and Claudia .So the coven most likely heard Armand's backstory, the 'yes, maitre' moment, and possibly read his mind - and incorporated that info into the Guido play .

Lestat playing a Harlequin: a meta reference

A Harlequin was one of the most iconic stock characters in Italian "commedia dell'arte". Commedia dell’arte was a early form of professional theatre that was popular throughout Europe between the 16th and 18th centuries.  It was characterized by physical comedy, improvised dialogue based on structured scenarios,  and stock characters with set personalities. Lestat plays the stock character of the 'harlequin' and uses this stage persona to later kill victims on stage ( teetering on the edge of humorous & monstrous).

"The Harlequin character is believed to have first originated from Medevial French Passion Plays. The term Harlequin derives from the Old-French word ' HELL-equin', meaning " a DEMON ". In the French Passion plays, the Harlequin inherited his physical agility, trickster qualities, and name from a mischievous "devil" or "demon" character ." But, this demon character was later re-interpreted into into a beloved 'comedic trickster' in the 16th century via commedia dell'arte.Lestat being compared to a "devil" / "satan" figure is a recurring theme in the show - echoing how Louis, Claudia , (and perhaps Armand?) perceived him in THEIR own stories .

But , it's also reminiscent of how most vampires perceive themselves as being connected to 'the devil' due to their vampiric nature ( Claudia, Louis, and Armand have all felt this way) . This is ironic though, since Lestat in the pilot, proclaimed "I'm not the devil" . And even tells the 'children of satan' to stop abiding by religious dogma and to stop serving satan, but instead themselves (since all vampires are "gods"). In the books Lestat also changes the (s3) band's name from "Satan's night out" to "The vampire Lestat".

"The Harlequin is also known to interrupt and mock his romantic rivals. His behavior often involves ridiculing competitors who attempt to woo the same woman, using wit and theatrical flair to undermine their efforts." This is essentially what dream-lestat does : mocking Armand and his romantic efforts of courting Louis.

Lestat in s1 also says "I can pretend the fool" before going to perform on stage and play piano. "The Harlequin is sometimes referred to as putting on a show of stupidity (despite being cunning and intelligent). " We see him do this often in s1. For instance, he pretends to be awful at cards to get everyone to laugh, and then cheats to help Louis win the card game ( showing he's secretly more cunning than meets the eye) . He purposefully puts on an un-assuming facade to humans so he looks less monstrorus . Even in the trial-play he shows traits of a harlequin (trying to get the audience to laugh at his theatrics).

Lestat ( within the show narrative) is reminiscent of the Harlequin's origins : oscillating between monstrous and comedic . The show writers depicted him as an antagonist but also made him “play the fool", for OUR comedic relief . We laugh with Daniel but often laugh AT Lestat. Lestat makes us laugh at his dramatic antics and tonally innapropriate one-liners . We even laugh at his delivery of certain lines (when he's clearly upset). He's the show's (functional) "fool", similar to the Harlequin in the play . " The Harlequin also often uses humor as a deliberate tool to generate chaos and disrupt order in the play (tv show)."

I'd also argue Lestat's rock-star persona in s3 may be as fake as his other stage personas such as the harlequin , or the king-raj role from s1 .None of them are the real him (they're just a 'role' ) .

------ In the book , Lestat said he played Lelio (a different character in "commedia dell'arte" ) .I believe it’s possible Lestat played leilo figure at some point . Lestat does fit the Lelio arc type as well as the Harlequin. LELIO : "His defining characteristic is being in love, but more so with the idea of love. He is self-obsessed, theatrical, flirtatious, foppish, emotionally volatile, often prone to jealousy, doubt, and melodrama. While speaking in flamboyant, poetic language." That... does sound like Lestat XD

So why did (book) Lestat play by the Lelio archetype but in the show he's a Harlequin ?There's a few possibilities. Perhaps the show writers found it more fitting narratively? Maybe Armand lied? Maybe Lestat played both roles at some point? Maybe Lestat played lelio but Armand misremembered him playing the Harlequin (since both the Lelio and Harlequin are in the same play)?

I think (show) Lestat probably did play a Harlequin. And Armand was bothered by this role in particular.Because Lestat's Harlequin character , made Armand feel like he was being mocked .

Why would the Harlequin remind Armand of himself? And why would he be offended, you ask??? Well...

"Harlequin is a specific character within the broader category of 'Zanni,' a comic servant figure in Italian commedia dell’arte. The name "Zanni" is a variant of the name Gianni and was common in the Lombard-Venetian countryside which provided most of the servants to the wealthy nobles and merchants of Venice."

"Harlequin's role in theater is deeply intertwined with historical links to slavery and racism, particularly through the use of the black mask and the character's portrayal as a 'comic servant '.The character’s origins, date back to 16th-century Italy and linked pan-European comic tropes with dark skin & servitude." This was in the same era Armand was living in Venice. "The Harlequin mask tradition traces back to ancient Roman theatre, where dark masks or black ashes were put on the face to play 'comedic -slave ' characters . Harlequins had become an international cultural icon, often meant to portray Africans and poc, and reinforce proto-racist caricatures."

When Armand was watching this play: he was also akin to a monk of "satan" (and had been living in extreme poverty for centuries because of the coven's religious doctrine.... so he was sort of like a dervish ) . Armand even referred to himeself as "Satan's fool" (satan’s fool = a Harlequin)

The racist caricature of the Harlequin goes beyond the mask that exaggerated poc features. The Harlequin accent was laughed at (or villianized) by racist theatre goers as well. "The Harlequin on stage would switch between speaking Italian & French. And his voice evolved as a distinctive blend of French & Italian dialects reflecting the character’s cultural journey across Italy, France, and beyond. This linguistic amalgamation emphasized his role as a cunning, adaptable trickster. This vocal style, often mocked for its exaggerated, comical quality, reinforced his identity as a mischievous, otherworldly figure: blending Venetian theatrical flair, French theatrical sophistication, and Italian improvisational roots."

Also, don't forget in s1 Lestat played a character called "king Raj". (Raj is an Indian name , so that could be foreshadowing for this Harlequin plot point). So Armand (probably) saw Lestat play a Harlequin: which in essence was an offensive racialized caricature of himself. Armand then approaches Lestat and Nicki, and the first thing Armand hears is Nicki call him a racial slur for Romani people. Then Lestat says he's a "grub", "nothing" and then calls him "strange one". FYI the word "strange" derives from the old french word 'estrange' and literally translates to "foreign"!!!!! YEAH that's a lot to digest...

So why would Armand seemingly gloss over this to Daniel ? Well, Armand probably doesn't believe Daniel would be emotionally or culturally sensitive to his feelings over the play(s) that he felt were mocking him . And I can't exactly blame him for assuming so .

"The Harlequin character was also deeply rooted in racist traditions, particularly through the use of the black mask echoing blackface traditions in European theater. The Harlequin archetype was seeped in racial stereotypes and blackface traditions which predate and influenced later forms of racist performance, including American minstrelsy."

Which this made me think about the minsterel undertones in Claudia's 'baby lulu' play . Was it Armand's doing because of his resentment toward Lestat? Was it the white 200year old playwrite (Sam) writing those elements in: because he was just influenced by centuries of minstrel elements within European theatre? Were the minstrel undertones in 'Baby Lulu' a commentary of how prevalent racism was in European theaters not just American ones? The cast and crew of the show are self proclaimed theatre nerds so it's possible they already knew the complicated history of European theatre & the Harlequin. Lestat being part of a troupe that essentially normalized black face (via the Harlequin) could be alluding to the fact Lestat was raised in a culture that normalized anti-blackness (and racial discrimination in general). And since Lestat never tried to un-pack the subconscious biases he had , it made him fail to be a good partner/parent to Louis & Claudia . Lestat criticized the USA ‘s racism (for good reason) , but that doesn’t mean racism in his time and country didn’t exist too. It just took a different form , and Lestat was influenced by that (even if he doesn’t realize it). Something Louis pointed out to him on several occasions.

Lestat even said taking Louis to an opera was a romantic "gift " to Louis. But Louis tells Armand he didn't like being "dragged" to theatre performances with Lestat. But I don't think that’s because Louis disliked theatre itself. It's because , in order to see certain performances at the French-opera house in Nola: he had to pretend to be Lestat's "servant" . And Louis was obviously angered by having to play the "servant role".

The Trial Play:

' My baby loves Windows' and "Enduring for Guido" (were allegedly written only by Sam). But, the trial play was written by Sam and Santiago, with “additions from Lestat”. A fan who won the trial script in the auction shared the pages of the script. And it confirmed Lestat only went off script 3 times. This included: Lestat apologizing to Louis for the drop, Lestat implying Nicki’s death was partially Armand’s fault, and Lestat interrupting the homophobe. Everything else was (surprisingly) scripted.

The trial play also had racialized elements (similar to the Harlequin play). Louis and Claudia ran away from Lestat- and then their ankles were slashed when the 3 reunited . The slashing of achile's tendon was a punishment for runaway slaves in the usa. Another punishment for runaway slaves was "public starvation" which Louis dealt with after the trial.

And as Claudia said, it wasn't a trial: because Louis & Claudia weren't even allowed to defend themselves to the judges or jurry. The play , in Claudia's words was a " stoning". Louis at the end of the play, is burried alive via stones . And, Stonings are also not trials: they're murders done by a group of people because an individual breaks a dogmatic (often religious) law. Similar to the coven's "great laws" that Claudia and Louis broke. Stonings today are also considered a "gender-based crime" because women are disproportionally punished while men who break these same laws are often given less severe punishments . Louis and Lestat were both guilty of "breaking the great laws" but only Claudia & Madeleine were sentenced to "death" for doing the same .

The trial play was also a gross caricacture of the events in Nola (filled with various falsehoods or deceptive framing which omitted Claudia and Louis' povs and nuanced motivations ) . The play was framed so that the Parisian audience would have less empathy for Claudia & Louis (and more sympathy for Lestat). Whenever Lestat did a bad thing that could justify Louis & Claudia's actions (Santiago would interrupt to explain white- Lestat's nuanced motivations; only to strip those same things from Claudia and Louis).

Yet, (even with the falsehoods within the play) there was still some insightful scenes which re-contextualized events we saw in s1:

The biggest example of this was when Louis admitted Lestat's recollection of Claudia's turning ( was more accurate than his) .

It didn't change how both Lestat & Louis were guilty in turning a child. The revelation about the turning: simply gave more nuance to the same story (and Lestat). It's also implied that if Claudia knew the entire truth from the beginning, she may have seen both of her surrogate fathers very differently.

Another important scene was learning Louis omitted the fact he beat and threatened to kill Lestat (before Lestat threw him from the sky). It DOESN'T change how there's an immense power imbalance between the 2, the fact the altercation began because Lestat choked Claudia, nor justify what Lestat did to Louis. But, it arguably (once again) adds some nuance to the scene and Lestat.

In the trial-play, we also learn Louis said he was leaving Lestat (and going with Claudia) right before the ' big drop' . And in the trial play, we learn one of the reasons Lestat turned Claudia was because Louis "promised" that if he did ; he'd "never leave (him) again." Which may have been another reason he snapped. But, again it doesn't justify Lestat's actions... it simply re-contextualizes them .

The revelations in the trial- play , make us subconsciously question how different the story (and the characters within it) would look if we had a different narrator ? Because even if every character in the show (theoretically) tried to be truthful: the same story would still look very different depending on who's narrating it . I don't think s3 will retcon much of what happened in s1-2, but perhaps simply add more scenes from Lestat's pov that add nuance to his character, prior events, and his past relationships . I don't think the show will invalidate Louis & Claudia's statements. We'd simply have Louis' truth, Claudia's truth, and Lestat's truth. Armand did say photos “ do not lie, but neither do they tell you a thorough story.” You could argue Louis’ recollection and Claudia’s diaries are the same .They aren’t lies . But having Lestat's side may simply give us a more "thorough" story. Pov greatly impacts how we view the story and its characters after all.

And we may see this theme explored in later seasons, in other ways too . For example, Armand ripped out every page of Claudia's diary that had his name in it. What were in those pages? Claudia spent 2 years being roommates with Armand and the rest of the coven and most of it was removed.Heck what part of her story didn't even make it into her diaries but are just memories of Louis, Lestat, Armand, and even Sam?

A common trope in tv or film: is to symbolically allude to a character's feelings or arc via a fictional play (in other words the writers get 'meta ' ). But given the narrative within IWTV it makes you wonder if some aspects of the plays were purely symbolic... or alluding to something more?

We see at the beginning of the season Armand felt "trepidation" from Louis when Lestat's name was mentioned (meaning it's fairly possible other members of the coven noticed this as well). Armand even warns Louis to "close his mind" because the coven can be vengeful if lied to. And Armand even says later on it's obvious when Louis is thinking of his "companion Bruce" (Lestat). While he says Claudia is good at blocking her thoughts.

I mention all of this because I do wonder if Sam who wrote all 3 plays was a gifted telepath. And since Louis was already bad at shielding his thoughts ( that maybe the 'Baby lulu' play was a hint that Sam already knew everything early on). He may have read daddy Lou's mind and or Claudia's mind : which was why the 'Baby Lulu play' referenced Paul's death, Claudia's infantilization, and Lestat calling her a bird. Because Sam already read Louis or Claudia's mind entirely. Sam was a talamasca agent who was able to hide the fact he was an informant spying on everyone in the coven (including Armand) . Meaning he was very good at shielding his own thoughts and possibly very good at reading others' minds as well. Having a strong mind gift as a spy would be very useful .If Sam was a really good telepath it could explain why the 'baby lulu' & 'guido' play had elements in them that would trigger Louis, Claudia, and Armand.

But again it's fairly possible the whole coven already read Louis and Claudia's minds since the beginning...

We see further hints of this: Armand said he knew the truth about Lestat since "the beginning". And we see hints Santiago possibly read Louis' mind early on as well . In ep 4 he calls Louis out : saying he was from New Orleans.And in ep3, before Claudia joins the coven, Santiago questions Claudia about whether Louis was from Cincinatti. And he even laughs at Claudia, when she claims her maker helped her be a good liar. In this same convo Santiago tells her, that he searches the minds of his victim's and finds their "shame" before he kills them on stage. He then says to the human: "see you on stage Claude." Claudia/Claude sound similar so it could be a hint that Santiago had already read Claudia's mind and was planning to kill her on stage (like his human targets). It's also a hint some of coven may have "mucked in her thoughts to find her shame" in order to make the baby-lulu play .

It makes you wonder if the coven (or at least a few members) already knew or suspected the truth since the beginning ? Before Claudia & Louis went to the theatre, the coven had been spying on them for months. So who knows if they already read their minds (and learned about Lestat's attempted murder) . If so , were all the members ( including Armand ) already in on a plan to avenge Lestat since the beginning? Or at least planning to kill them for breaking "the great laws"? If so Armand was essentially a honey-trap. But, then he (perhaps?) got a bit too lost in the role, and maybe even back-tracked from the idea of killing them, so the coven started to revolt and he was demoted? Especially because he was such a strict enforcer of the rules beforehand.

In ep 4, we see coven members eavesdrop on Armand telling Louis his backstory. Then at the end of ep 4 we have Louis sense Armand's "panic". Armand then warns Louis to leave Paris since Santiago and the others want him dead . And we see coven members who were spying on them- see this entire scene. Then when we return to the Parisian storyline: we have Armand's account of what happened. Which tbh is probably not very accurate.

But , Armand in ep4 told Santiago to "know your role , thespian or meet your maker in oblivion ". Then in the following episode the coven writes a play about Armand which mentions his past and his impeding vampiric death . It was confirmed after ep 4 they wrote the Guido play which alluded to Armand's human -backstory , and his human-death. Then within the play they ask him what a vampiric death would be like . Aka that was the possible death threat that Armand claimed the coven made against him.When Armand first compliments this death-scene , Santiago turns to look at Claudia and then stares at Armand as he once again repeats this same line AGAIN. "What does it mean to die ?!" This echoes what Santiago says as he looks at his human victims on stage: "Do you know what it means to be loved by death?"

I actually do believe Armand thought his life was in danger (so he threw Madeline, Claudia, and Louis' lives under the bus in exchange for his own ). And we see possibly foreshadowing of Armand's choice in THE VERY FIRST PLAY LOUIS & CLAUDIA WATCH IN PARIS :

People always mention Armand's stopping the coven at the restaurant as proof this is a lie. BUT, tbf , that was when the coven wasn't actively trying to fight as a united front . From Armand's pov he saw his maker who was 1000s of years old be killed by a gang of young vamps (so it's not surprising Armand would at least be a bit apprehensive about dueling the coven to the death ). Even Lestat was almost murdered by his 2 much younger fledglings. And in the end Louis killed a bunch of older vampires .

In fact with the Guido play - who's to say Armand and Santiago weren't telepathically conversing? And Armand was lying about it to Daniel and Louis? We may only see that revealed in later seasons. We already saw Santiago in ep 3 perform on stage while telepathically demanding Armand kill Louis (cause the whole coven wanted it). Unbeknownst to Claudia who was happily watching the play. So who's to say during the 1st rehearsal of the Guido play : the coven had a telepathic conversation about killing Louis, and Claudia, and said if Armand didn't comply they'd kill him next ? So Armand gave the 'go-ahead'.

During the rehearsals for the 'Guido' play, we are told the coven was also plotting Louis & Claudia's deaths (and trying to find Lestat.) Louis mentions that at the time the newspapers discussed a telescopic lens being stolen (which was later used to burn claudia & Madeleine to death). Then Louis brings up another news article where a group were chanting in unison on the Eiffle tower .The coven were on the Eiffle tower talking to other vampires telepathically in order to find Lestat.

After Louis mentions all of this , the scene transitions to (past) Louis telling Armand he's going to turn Madeleine . And Louis tells Armand to go back to the coven to make sure it isn't stopped . Then according to Armand: he returns, and the coven throws the new (trial) play at his feet . That might be true (might not be) . But it could be a classic 'Armand 1/2 truth'. He could have already been well aware of the plan before the 1st draft of the play was submitted and thrown at his feet.

After Armand was (allegedly) given the trial-script he goes to Louis' apartment that night. There he learns Claudia has already left town with Madeleine . Armand then moves in with Louis and directs rehearsals for the 'trial play' (with Lestat and the others) until Claudia is lured back into Paris.

In fact, it was probably the coven's idea that Armand move in with Louis in the first place. WHY? Well in the released trial-script Lestat says how betrayed he felt that his bf lived with him, slept with him, and for months plotted his murder behind his back (while smiling in his face). And Lestat said he kept on expecting Louis to change his mind , and apologize for going along with the murder-plan, and come clean before it was too late. So the coven may have wanted Louis to have a similar feeling of betrayal (and they used Armand to implement that).

I also take Armand's words with a HUGE grain of salt , but people may not realize why Armand would claim being "forced to watch" the play was part of his "punishment" . When he was a young vampire, Amadeo was kidnapped by a gang of vampires and thrown into a bag and beaten (just like Louis was).And then he was forced by a gang of vampires to watch human children he knew be burned alive. Similar to how he was forced to watch Claudia (who's in a child's body) be burned alive. Then he had to hear Louis scream from starvation . When similarly, after Amadeo watched the kids be burned alive, he was also starved by these vampires for weeks until he lost his sanity. Coincidence... maybe , maybe not.

To be honest, we may never know how much the coven knew from the beginning. Or the entire truth. But maybe we'll get some answers from Lestat and Sam (the playwright... who is still alive and will return in s3).