“There’s always stuff going forward. Look, I think he went there [...]"
"So, did he go against his will? No, I think all of this is about [Lestat] was a willing participant."
“I think he comes in with great rage. ‘They manipulated me and murdered me and left me in a garbage dump. By the time he’s there looking at both of them [things change]. I think otherwise, that episode, the trial has no dramatic movement whatsoever.”
is rolin just...... saying whatever he feels like. it's almost like he's phrasing this in a way that is a subjective interpretation of his own show. he is the showrunner, but there's ambiguity in "maybe we'll address it" along with these statements like it's a matter of opinion—in that case, wouldn't that be a major spoiler if it were building off these comments? it's such a strange way to approach the topic if it's going to be discussed at all.
before i continue let me say that i'm not giving rolin the benefit of the doubt here or trying to read the lines or search for a "hidden meaning" to cope with it. the point is this interview shouldn't exist.
i actually agree with one thing rolin said, although i understand it's not a popular opinion in the fandom: i do believe the answer is already clear in season 2 with the clues we are given, but it is not the answer rolin gave in this interview. i would be content without the show making it explicit, even if it would be disappointing not to know the details of what lead lestat to paris. there are a several loose ends that are unexplainable if the extent of lestat's participation in the trial is what rolin "thinks" it is. i appreciate the article mentions lestat yelling about claudia's strength with great emotion at rehearsal, because that is in my opinion the strongest bit of evidence of lestat's unwillingness, alongside other clues. but these details contradict what rolin is is saying in the article.
i would easily accept that lestat came to paris willingly, or even agreed to initially participate and then withdrew at some point before the trial itself for whatever reason. but because we see his outburst regarding claudia's strength during rehearsal—as well as that ominous shot of him appearing to be held stiffly in place like a puppet—having him change his mind while on the stage doesn't make any sense to me.
some fans may disagree with this and that's fine. what i consider clues may be interpreted from a different angle, and the show could very easily give more information to clarify a point of view, like 2x08 did with claudia's turning. either way, my next point remains the same: no matter how willing lestat was to participate in the trial or for how long, and if it's something that the writers believe needs to be settled, why is it being confirmed by an interview and not the show itself?
it's outrageous from a storytelling standpoint to use interviews with the creators to confirm or deny theories otherwise left ambiguous. i have always been skeptical of the extent that some of the fanbase draws upon interviews as evidence, and I try to limit how much i read them so they don't influence my own theories, but i also believe that the amount of what is borderline enmeshment that the creators have with the fandom, as well as the contents of the interviews that sometimes have contradicting opinions amongst the actors and writers, feeds into it. lestat's willingness is not a topic resolved within the show. it doesn't matter that the "answer" comes from rolin itself. the number of people that read or watch these interviews is a fraction of the total viewership. is it assumed to be a requirement that to achieve full understanding of the show, a viewer must engage extensively with meta content from its creators? is that the standard that is being demanded from the audience?
i don't agree. please take my word for it that it's not just because it goes against my own headcanon: when there's a history of plot development in the show that invalidates what is said in past interviews by a creative authority (such as rolin), whether the original statement was intentionally misleading or a change that was made further down the line as a whim there is no basis for what is said to be trusted as canon with regards to writing choices. and it constantly begs the question if it's worth it to try to draw conclusions from the details that the show sets into place, or if they will be abandoned for an unearned twist. taking the show seriously and having fun with it almost feels as if it's rewarded with spite.
which leads me to my last point: it is a horribly mean-spirited way to interact with your viewership as a creative authority for the show, especially as a showrunner. it doesn't matter if it's genuinely what rolin may "think" of a plot thread that he knows will never be addressed in canon, that he's sharing his opinion on something that will be left open indefinitely—which again, would mean if what rolin says is the "truth", it would be a spoiler—or if he is only saying "i think" to avoid completely committing to the original concept, just in case he wants to make changes to the story that are otherwise built on nothing, for the bait-and-switch of it all or on a whim. this contradicts what he's said before about the overall adaptation of the show already being mapped out. it also destroys viewers' trust in the sincerity of the story and enthusiasm to engage with it meaningfully.
i sincerely believe interviews regarding writing choices should be more limited to the fandom, especially with those involved whose words carry weight. at the very least not until the tale is completely concluded, otherwise there is no trust in the permanence of what is being said. this series has a track record. so yes, i more or less reject what rolin said as canon. i won't argue with other fans about it—i wasn't interested in that before this anyway—but it's becoming impossible for me to take statements like this from rolin seriously. if there's going to be a pivot from what the details have been building up to, the show itself can spell it out for me when the time comes, not meta text from an interview with someone that can't even commit to their own story in good faith.
link to the article
