I Could Be A Leading Man

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) .