These Fucking Gays Will Be The Death Of Me

It’s a lot more complex than anyone can ever think it to be.

Armand is someone who appears calm on the surface most times, but he’s a constant clusterfuck of psychological issues underneath. And that’s the thing I think a lot of people forget. He’s isn’t a one dimensional mustache twirling antagonistic villain (although the writers this season have made him look like one). He’s a deeply complex and tragic character who does horribly antagonistic things when he believes he deserves to do it. And book readers especially know what kind of things Armand will do when he feels that someone deserves his wrath.

When Armand is in a certain mode, he doesn’t stop. He holds grudges as viciously as a crow and executes it with the ferocity of one. What he did to Lestat was to destroy him as he “enjoyed ruining for the sake of ruining”. Stopping the Great Conversion was now a secondary concern. He ruined him emotionally and physically, then gave the scraps to his companion to deal with as a consolation prize for his own grievances. With Louis, possibly because it’s more recent and raw, he plotted his vengeance for the last three years in a complex and almost deranged plot to hurt him back.

Given that he had all but given up any possibility of making “Armends” with his adversaries since Lestat’s public humiliation stunt, his letter to Louis was handled completely different from the others. Any patience and grace he had before is completely gone and there’s great resentment in his tone. He’s angry. He wants his pound of flesh as if he hadn’t gotten it already. And of all things, he wants a proper apology.

Any person looking at what Armand had done over the course of his and Louis would think it ludicrous to think Armand should get an apology. Who was at fault and why it happened and everything in between could be debated to ad nauseam. The point is Armand believes that he deserves an apology. But the core reason for this sense of insane entitlement may seem more familiar than the audience believes.

The issues Armand had with Louis in their relationship is not dissimilar to Lestat in S1 before the big drop. Yes, one relationship was filled with lies to maintain a very fragile fantasy while another was filled with lies to protect very dark secrets, but the core conflict is still the same. Louis would not give his companion what they wanted most; love.

“I have waited, Louis. I have patiently waited, in vain, for you to love me, as I love you. Just say it. Say it, Lestat I am never going to love you. You would help me a great deal, to hear that from your lips.” -1x5

“Many times I told myself the lie did not matter, because what we had built, a love that served as a bunker against time, was weightier and more consequential than the lie, but it wasn’t true. The lie did matter, because the corpse was there, calling forth the facts”- 3x7

A lot of the dialogue between Louis and Armand in this episode also mirrors Louis and Lestat’s dialogue from episode 2 when they had a confrontation with their lawyers. Louis and Lestat showing off their respective lawyers/flings and Louis and Armand shoving it in about the “love of their life” and their “companions”. And of course all the things they won’t forgive each other for no matter how hard they try.

Now I personally don’t think Armand trapped and tortured Louis and Regina with the intention of getting a proper apology. For one, Armand’s plans always have a beginning and middle, but the end is always poorly thought out. And second, I don’t think Armand even knows what his end goal is other than his adversaries getting the hurt that he believes they deserve for hurting him. As the old saying goes, hurt people hurt.

First of all, if I’m to explain any of this, I have to first introduce another piece of media through a movie called “Confessions”.

Confessions is a Japanese psychological thriller movie in which the story of a murder of a child changes based on the perspectives of the character. There is one truth out there. It’s just the truth is different based on who was involved in the murder.

If anyone wants to see a deep dive on the movie, look no further than here. Warning, the story is very graphic.

This tactic was done frequently in S3 in which it had multiple moments where the audience believes they know the truth they always believed until another perspective changes it on its head. And then maybe another. The finale did this a lot.

A few good examples are the following:

1) Claudia’s train story was believed to be true until Lestat said it never happened and said it was impossible. During the seance, Claudia confirmed that she had lied about Lestat threatening with rape or worse to manipulate Louis. And yet, during Lestat’s concert in between life and death, he meets and acknowledges the train conductor he had decapitated.

2) Armand claims in his apology letter to Lestat that his relationship with him was one sided and this is more or less confirmed in Lestat’s retelling of his time in Paris with him. However, Nicki’s phantom repeatedly haunts him during performances and recordings of “Bad Boss”with Lestat looking guilty. Not only that, but several other phantoms in Lestat’s mind repeatedly remind him of his relationship with Armand.

3) Claudia’s diaries reveal that Lestat had forced her to watch Charlie burn in the incinerator as she squirmed. In Lestat’s flashback, he’s holding her as they both watch Charlie burn with tears in his eyes. Inside his mind, phantom Louis accuses him of doing what Gabriella had done to him as a child with witches. He calls it “tough love” and we do indeed see Claudia squirming as Lestat tries to hold her still to watch Charlie burn.

The tactic in this form of storytelling is intentionally gaslighting the audience to believe they understand the truth of a situation only to make them question all of it. If it’s done well, then the story can do this multiple times and leave the audience questioning all of it by the end. The only thing about The Vampire Lestat is that when writers aren’t well coordinated and don’t intend to utilize this theme consistently, it just looks like sloppy writing. Hence why I said frequently, not consistently.

Hannah Moscovitch was the writer for episode 5 and 7 and she was also one the main writers of the first two seasons. She knows how to play with inconsistency in narrative and craft it all her own whether it be altered memories, lies, or difference in perspective. That’s why episode really 7 works, because it made the audience think they understood the truth only to question themselves once again. It also explains why the fandom fights so much about who is right or wrong.

The answer is no one is completely right or wrong. They have their perspective and no one else’s. And if we haven’t noticed by now, everyone lies.

“It’s not how it happened! It is how it happened”

The people in that room were all the people he loved and respected as well as all the people he had drained and killed in the last 200+ years. And he remembers every single one. From people who seem insignificant to the significant.

Paul wasn’t someone he drained, but someone he had unintentionally drove to suicide just as he did Nicki. He messed with a mentally unstable man and it led to poor consequences.

But Paul isn’t there for judgment nor penance. He’s there to remind Lestat on the few things he did right in his life. And one of them was loving Louis, as grotesque as that love may have seemed to him.

You could call Paul an Angel or some form of divine messenger. He’s just a gentle presence for Lestat to lean on as a quiet in the loud chaos when the lights go out.

1. An insane combination of words

2. Directly confirms at minimum a sexual component to his relationship with Armand.

I think they’re mentor/mentee with benefits right now.

With the bomb Louis drops on Armand about the kind of love he needs, combined with Eric’s comments about their relationship being like someone you loved a long time ago returning to your life and you have to learn who they are again, I think their present day storyline in season 4 will be that changing.

I think it’s purely physical right now with how unhinged and detached Armand is from reality and how angry Daniel is, I don’t think they’ve spent much time bonding. Neither of them are getting their emotional needs met and this is why they were so off this season.

Armand conflating sex with fulfilment makes sense. Daniel seems pretty aggressive right now and perhaps he’s different with Armand or perhaps we’re going to see him become different with Armand. Become that cradle he so badly needs. As they start to learn about each other again, there’s a shift from just physical to physical and emotional.

So yeah, they can call themselves companions. Doesn’t really mean it’s true. That word represents something different to them now than it will come to mean in the future. They’re partners in crime but we’ll see them become real partners. And there comes the change in Armand we know happens in the books.