I FINALLY FIGURED OUT WHAT "The floor slants slightly to the North" FROM EPISODE 5 MEANS
NEARLY ONE-AND-A-HALF YEARS LATER
IT'S BEEN ON MY MIND NEARLY EVERY DAY
AND FINALLY CAME TO ME REWATCHING IT TODAY
Armand is commenting on the disturbed foundation of the room, exposed by the trail of Daniel's blood
In Gothic Horror, the setting is ALWAYS a reflection of the character's interior lives.
So Armand commenting on the slanted foundation is actually just hyperfocising on the fact that HIS AND LOUIS' RELATIONSHIP'S STABILITY IS UNEVEN AND UNBALANCED. So Armand repeating it, and that they must fix it before they sell it, is him saying that THEY HAVE TO REVIEW THEIR FOUNDATION before they can "sell" it to someone else.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
what people often don't realize about "dear, this is a stein" scene in s2e4 is that it's not even super important if armand put those photos there or not. i can easily imagine the scenario that talamasca did it, for example, in order to put more tension between two powerful vampires.
what mattered the most in that scene (and their subsequent argument) is that it revealed hidden dynamic in dubai apartment. and i think once you fully realize all the implications of that scene, you'll also realize that there's no point at all to defend armand with technicality of "who did this".
season 1 depicted louis as someone who had full power in the apartment, since armand was pretending to be a member of the staff, someone who served louis. after it's revealed to be a disguise, armand and louis give another, more subtle performance instead: that they're equals, that they're romantic partners who do everything together. there are some suspicious details you can notice in their interactions etc, but they're almost always downplayed, made to be seen as some sorta compromise ("could i see the pages we removed?" - "we made an agreement").
and the thing is, this is the first moment when we see something very clear in their dynamic, something bigger than all the hints we got before it. the scene still doesn't say it explicitly, but it's a great opening for what's gonna be revealed in s2e5. so it's still subtle but it's also not subtle enough to be ignored anymore.
the show does some interesting things there, and i greatly enjoy thinking about them. let's look at some of them closely.
the first thing that happens after louis looks at the photographs is that he starts questioning armand. there's almost no hesitation, he immediately looks at armand and asks him "what is this?".
he also looks very distressed, even though from our pov there is seemingly no reason to think it's something more than misunderstanding or mistake in archival process. and it reveals two fascinating things at once:
1) louis is already on high-alert mode with armand, he already suspects that armand is doing something behind his back specifically to mess with his mind (and we'll come back to "mess with his mind" part a bit later).
2) armand has more control over the house than anyone else, including louis: louis immediately assumes that armand would know who put it there even if louis himself doesn't. he's asking him like he's the owner of the archive, even though it's mostly about louis' life.
and let's look at how the show masterfully frames the dynamic between two of them visually. louis is squatting of the floor in order to look at photographs, but he technically doesn't have to. this is deliberate creative decision: louis is positioned in the shot to once again look up at armand from the lower point, while armand looks down on him. it's the framing of adult talking to a child, not someone equal. very similar thing was done in s1e7 as well.
and here's the iconic line: "dear, this is a stein". armand is very condescending here, maybe a bit ironic. instead of putting himself to louis' level, like trying to look at the photos himself and maybe make some believable theories, he uses the situation to frame louis as the "hysterical" and "unreasonable" one. so even if armand didn't do this, his reaction reveals that he doesn't take louis seriously and (at the very least) doesn't mind that it makes louis look delusional in front of other people.
meanwhile louis looks increasingly anxious and desperate to be believed to. he wants to hear validation that he's not out of his mind. this is clearly not the first time something like this happened: the way louis also immediately tries to defend and explain himself demonstrates that it's a common occurrence in the house that he gets blamed for "weird" things like this. and it seems like usually armand is both the source of accusation and comfort: he implies the possibility that louis is delusional and he also calms louis down, gives him possible excuses. it's a routine.
and speaking of dismissing louis, let's look at the next thing armand does. louis asks him questions, but armand answers to daniel. the same exact thing will happen in s2e6 too when armand explains the whole san francisco incident (not looking in louis' direction at all). this is the most clear display of power: armand is calm and collected, not even looking at louis, but talking to his guest instead. there's a message here, it's like he's saying "you see, dear guest, louis sometimes acts out, but let's not blame him because he's not healthy".
another interesting thing about their dynamic: louis takes this! he's still pissed off obviously (and they will continue to argue about this later), but instead of pushing back and at least standing up to look armand in the eyes, he stops questioning him. because it's embarrassing. and now he's put in the situation where he has to apologize and explain himself to daniel. the framing is not a genuine confusion or misunderstanding, the framing is pure humiliation. and this is exactly why this scene is often compared to the painting scene in 'gaslight (1944)'.
and speaking of gaslighting, we see this scene developing into the full-blown argument later in their bedroom. and once again, the show is framing louis as standing below armand. and once again, louis looks very distressed over the situation next to mostly calm armand. and at this point it may seem like louis is simply paranoid or delusional. but this time around the audience for this is not daniel, but us and louis himself. here's another key line that reveals another hidden dynamic between louis and armand:
at this point in the show "you sure about that?" may seem like genuine frustrated reaction from armand, who's tired of being accused. and it could even be genuine! but it demonstrates how he react to louis' "paranoia": instead of finding ways to stop it or ease it, he deflects this paranoia back on louis himself.
and remember, louis already experienced hallucinations and memory lapses, louis already has doubts in his own sanity. at this point of time, he's convinced that armand knows what's better for him. so why put it there, why feed into that doubt even more? because it's all about control.
but what's also interesting, louis doesn't easily accept the excuses this time. he fights back. and he once again brings up what he thinks armand is doing: messing with his mind, trying to "coddle him". as dutifully as louis plays his role of the owner of the house, he's very aware of his position in relation to armand and what kind of control armand has over him.
and not only he's aware of it, he basically accepts this totally fucked up thing as some frustrating but unavoidable part of their life together: he's stressed, he's fighting back, he's yelling, but he's still in the bedroom with armand. they're gonna sleep in the same bed after this. it's a common occurrence that's normalized in their home.
and this theme will continue to be explored in more details in s2e5 and s2e6 ("maitre only when it's hot and convenient" - "that's how i took it"). but it was already there in s2e4.
Armand was from the lower caste in India: Recontextualization of Arun, Amadeo and Armand
The caste system has been around for centuries upon centuries, long before the arrival of the British. They utilized the hierarchy to better serve their colonial efforts but make no mistake, it was always there.
Arun is a distinctly Hindu name. He says his parents sold him off. If the parents were desperate enough to sell him, he was 100% in a low income home, which in his time period is a most likely caused by his potential lower caste status.
A very basic insight into the caste system:
It was originated from, and often justified, using Hindu scriptures such as the Manusmriti. The texts justify this by saying the caste positions are actually, the name of job roles. But truly, what equality can there be when one caste are kings by divine decree, and the other is destined to be nothing but a janitor?
This meant certain castes were barred from education and acquiring any job other than those "assigned" by their caste. Household labor and work that is considered "disgusting" pays next to nothing(again justified by 'divine order'). Class mobility is a pipe dream in this system.
Scholars and activists like Ambedkar and Periyar spearheaded efforts to abolish the caste system, and spoke extensively about how the caste-system is self-perpetuating. Even if you are not of the highest caste, a majority of the population are higher than someone, and this means those of that caste sought to maintain their position to ensure they didn't fall in the ladder.
If selling family members was the state Armand's family was at, the were 100% in the lowest of low castes with little to no income. Even when he was sold, his job was supposed to be a working role. Children from upper caste homes would've been studying.
Now the name Arun suggests that his family were practicing Hinduism, which was mainly the religion of the upper caste. Hinduism basically swallowed local religious practices by rewriting them into Hinduism canon, or just abolished them. It's possible one of these things happened in the case of Armand's family, and they were kind of forced into practicing Hinduism due to an erasure of their community's own(this is pure speculation and I'm entering just hc territory but typically this is what happened with the lower caste).
The interesting bit here, is the lack of surname. This might have just been the writing room using Armand's brief time in India + the ocean of memory to say he doesn't remember. But. Your last name is straight up just the caste name. It's a status indicator.
Sharma, Singh, Rajput, Jain, Choudhary, etc are all caste names and you bet your ass an upper caste fucker's gonna tell you it(I had a gay classmate during my undergrad whose last name was Rajput. Despite admitting his family was homophobic, he still held pride in his last name and was often baffled that mine wasn't a caste name- I used my dad's name as surname since there is a movement in my state to eradicate caste names by taking on the father's name). They're not leaving that shit out or forgetting, it's a social marker, something people take pride in(and if an Indian person is doing this, run for the hills, they're practically announcing they're deeply conservative).
Arun not using his last name or even attempting to remember it means there's trauma, or terrible history behind it.
Another thing to consider is his skin color. This is a generalization, but those in lower caste typically have darker skin. It's not a blanket statement, but it's a pattern that occurs often enough that you can't dismiss it. 15th century India, the divisions would've been much, much more prominent so there wouldn't have been as much inter-caste marriages. So the colorism and division would've been much stronger.
Claudia notes Armand's dark skin. And I love that she does because as a Black woman, it's this solidarity found in understanding they suffered through this shared history of exploitation and racist prejudice, the hope in overcoming said exploitation and injustice (the independence movement in India and the fight against casteism were heavily inspired by the efforts of Black people in South Africa, the US, everywhere).
We can 100% discuss how Armand betraying Claudia & Louis is allegorical to sucking up to the system that discriminates against you, in order to maintain your undesired but still 'safe' position btw. That's 100% a thing we can talk about because it happens alllllll the time.
All of this to say, I think Arun was most likely of a lower caste in India, and even though his story takes place across Europe, it rings heavily of the traumas seen in the lower caste in India. Slavery, exploitation, centuries of subservience and the undercurrent of sexual trauma with a complete loss of autonomy, serving a light-skinned master.
A lot of people had often converted to Christianity, Buddhism, or Islam to escape this system(it got enacted in these religions too in India but that's a whole other story). Armand's knowledge of Islam could be a potential indicator of that history of conversion as well.
I think a lot of the fandom are well-meaning in trying to say that 'Arun' is Armand's true name, which is natural because you have no chance of learning this system(I will not call it history, it's present in India right now). But Armand uses Armand, not Arun. He's almost uncomfortable when Arun is used. Names hold weight in India. I frankly understand Armand's urge to stick to Armand. It is the name which gave him power, as twisted as it was. Amadeo and Arun had Maître, but Armand IS Maître. An impossible ascension. And I think the fandom should take this into consideration, if this isn't common knowledge already.
I would also suggest looking into documentaries about the caste system in India, I think it could really help flesh out Armand.
[I'm not an expert but I do have lots of personal experience on this topic as my father's family was considered to be of a lower caste. My mom and dad have been staunchly against the caste system and have adopted manners of living to fight against the system- name change, atheism (atheism has a whole other meaning in India tied to liberation from caste and rebellion against conservative Hinduism), inter-faith and inter-caste marriages. My family is involved politically and in the literature world with scholars in keeping the conversation going on dismantling caste in our state.]
Louis privacy and his story got violated, twisted and exposed at a mock trial intended to humiliate and kill him with a full live audience who reacted and reinforced the humiliation.
Louis hasn’t healed from it, and now continues that cycle with Claudia and Lestat. Perhaps he was trying the right the wrong of the trial by exposing Claudia’s diaries, or saw it as a chance for her voice to be heard and eternalized.
Even though the book was published without his consent (!!) the boundary breaking with Claudia happened by letting Daniel read her diaries.
Sharing Lestat’s private moments with Daniel bc he thought that’s what Lestat already did to him with the trial! It’s a continuation of the cycle, not a breaking of the cycle. And that’s an interesting thing for the show to explore - are you actually breaking the cycle of abuse or just continuing it in another way?
So let’s be nuanced about why Louis lacks boundaries regarding privacy without excusing it (!)
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
something something memory is a monster and how somehow the two ppl who are the most on claudia’s side are the guy who killed her and the guy who never met her
bc while her fathers are so stricken by grief and guilt and their own emotions that they are constantly sidelining her neglecting her projecting onto her making her play a role, on the other hand!!!!!! armand knew exactly what he was doing making her be baby lulu!!!! but lestat did the SAME EXACT THING to her treating her like a doll except HE was totally sincere and couldn’t even comprehend why she was unhappy
and daniel being the one to stand up for her and say no claudia would not have hesitated to burn lestat!!! even while louis’s guilt will do anything to block out his memories of how he failed her daniel won’t let him, even tho daniel himself is a deadbeat dad who was constantly failing HIS daughters
like. in some ways armand and daniel are able to see her with the most clarity bc they have the least grief. and for louis and lestat their grief over losing their daughter actually is the epitome of memory is a monster like OK BUT THAT ISNT UR DAUGHTER. THATS A MIRAGE. THATS A FANTASY. THATS BABY LULU.
also obv armand being the only one who can understand her on the level of “child vampire” and how a lot of his hatred and disdain for her doesn’t come from a place of actual hatred but more like. the detached contempt of putting down a sick dog that doesn’t know it’s sick. it’s not about her either. it’s about the laws about how he believes she’s a mistake just like he was a mistake and she will suffer just like he’s suffered and he’s putting her out of her misery. he’s able to write off taking her life bc “oh well it’s a mercy killing, she’s inherently broken (like i am)” instead of seeing her as a fully actualized person who HAS AGENCY AND CONTROLS HER OWN NARRATIVE AND DOESNT HAVE TO FOLLOW THE CYCLE!!!!!!
like. insanity. her parents should have protected her but they didn’t. the person who probably could have understood claudia the most in the world (armand) and therefore SHOULD have protected her from what he went through decided to repeat the cycle and that taking away her agency was for her own good and her death didn’t really mean anything bc she was doomed anyway. the guy who’s reading her diaries and scavenging between the lines for hints about who she was is too late to ever hear her voice
Obfuscation of the truth; Lawyer Litigation scene TVL episode 2 Toledo
When episode 2 delivered the highly recognisable lawyer scene, I waited with baited breath for a particular part that the extended trailer had shown us and which I really wanted to see given context. But by the end I thought I had just completely missed it taking place, it wasn't until I rewatched the episode that realisation struck; memory is a monster.
I hadn't missed the moment, it just never took place in the episode.
Wondering what else had been purposefully left out, I went over both the trailer and episode, trying to see if there was anything I could understand from the differences.
Lets start chronologically:
The episode starts the scene with an establishing shot of a coffee machine, pastries and associated utensils. Which perfectly stages the entire tone of the scene; for a meeting with 3 vampires and 1 mortal, this setup is excessive since only Christine would be able to consume any of it. It's effectively a decoration with no real purpose, a performance if you will.
Adding to that the shot is upside down, which is a visual confirmation that the scene has been altered in some way. To turn something upside down is to change or distort it.
In the episode, the next time the coffee machine is fully framed in shot again (this time upright), there's also a photograph directly above it of a cityscape seemingly upside down at first glance. The camera doesn't pause here but continues to keep the photograph in view, panning until it stops at where Louis makes his first appearance.
The photograph being shown as upside down for it's first appearance, happens at the same time when Louis is referred to as Mr Pitt, an alias used to bring Lestat to the meeting under false pretenses.
The upside down city is kept in view when Louis relays (through Lemuel) that it was actually Lestat that had called the meeting, and (interestingly enough) still in shot when Christine denies that "[Lestat] did no such thing" but with the camera stopping at and centering Louis for the entire duration of her saying it.
The coffee machine staying upright throughout the sequence, affirms that the truth is present in this moment, even if (what looks like) the upside down photograph shows that a distorted view of these events is being presented to us.
While the trailer gives a decent length of time for this scene, the establishing shot is a very quick split second, and has Lestat as the first character presented. Keep in mind that he's shown wearing his sunglasses for only this shot in the trailer, for the rest of the scene he isn't wearing them or otherwise touching them even if they're present on the table (more on this later).
The next part seems like a bit of a reach, but honestly the show runners are very intentional with how a scene is staged so bear with me here; His right hand is curled in a way that somewhat resembles the motion made when pressing down on a gun's trigger, and it's not facing the camera head on or completely to the right, but aiming diagonally right. Combined with the lyrics from 'All Fall Down' (from the previous part of the trailer) of "Bang bang bang" (the literal sound a gun makes!), and the pattern of his shirt which almost look like splatters or cracks from a bullet's impact, all bring attention to how the scene is a fight that he's unwilling to lose to his opponent.
While Lestat is not the first character appearing in the scene for the episode, his first appearance is similar enough to the trailer but with a few key differences. He still has his sunglasses on but his shirt is noticeably more buttoned up and his hands are under the table. This version is visibly and quite literally not showing us his hand, he's playing it cool so that even his expression is more stoic, he's all business.
When the camera centres him, Christine (talking to Lemuel) mentions the act of being dishonest quite neutrally, instead of explicitly addressing either Louis or Lemuel, or both together, she uses "these" not "you or your", suggesting that the thing being "made up" in this shot relates to Lestat.
For the episode, in the last shot with Lestat in frame before he takes off his (unnecessary) sunglasses, he states that his songs are not about Louis, with the visual of his right hand raised in a loose fist = a verbal punch, and his obstructed eyes inform us that he doesn't want anyone to scrutinise the truthfulness (or lack thereof) of that statement.
Lestat is out of view when he takes off the glasses, which occurs during a back and forth with Louis about the iwtv book. Note how the photograph which had been shown only halfway is revealed more for the first time, informing us that it was never upside down, but carefully positioned to look like it was, as the mirrored reflection of the city was what we saw rather than the actual city, similarly our perception of the truth was distorted by an external force.
In the next shot of Lestat in frame without the sunglasses, he's continuing the conversation by verbally challenging Louis (and looking at him), but both his body and head are tilted towards Lemuel in a hunched but alert position, with the camera framing Lestat between Louis' shoulder and Lemuel's hand.
Now lets get into what caused this spiral, after comparing them, I found that there were 2 key moments that were present in the trailer but absent in the episode.
Trailer 1st Moment:
When Armand is brought up for the first time in the trailer, Louis questions Lestat if "[He] wants to get into Armand?" whilst Lestat continues to laugh. Also note that the camera uses a close up shot of just Louis when this interaction takes place for the first time, intentionally leaving Lemuel out of frame. But Lemuel's introduction as a character wasn't kept a secret in the trailer, so there's no other reason to not include him in frame unless it was narratively important to show how focused Lestat was on Louis' response to Lestat bringing up Armand.
Episode 1st Absence:
The episode leaves out Louis' question, and includes Lemuel in frame when Armand is brought up. Remember that this interaction has been edited by Lestat to feel less emotional, the distance of the camera relates to the distance Lestat is placing between him goading Louis about Armand, and his interest in Louis' response.
The omission of Louis' question was strange, since the proceeding argument about Armand stays the same in both trailer and episode. It's possible Lestat doesn't actually want to discuss Armand (in greater depth), and by erasing Louis' question, he can pretend that it's Louis who's reluctant to tell him about his relationship, rather than it being Lestat who is fearful of what he might find out about Louis' relationship with Armand (which lasted longer than Lestat's own relationship with Louis). This also indicates that for the most part, Lestat is in the dark in regards to Louis and Armand's relationship.
Trailer 2nd Moment:
I believe this moment was the catalyst for Lestat's rewrite of the scene; when Louis reaches out to Lemuel to touch his hand, with Louis being the initiator of this touch. This is what causes Lestat's affronted and distressed expression, and it's this moment that he refuses to admit happened since it's absence in the episode is quite telling.
Episode 2nd Absence:
Lestat's distressed expression is unchanged in the retelling, but the shot before, that replaces the one in the trailer, has Lemuel mentioning ending the meeting "dispassionately", the implication that Lestat's time with Louis is coming to a lacklustre end, and with the "we" used by Lemuel to signify his unity with Louis.
By replacing the moment that Louis reaches for Lemuel, the moment which Lestat views as most distressing in the entire interaction (based on his reaction), with an event that Lestat feels more comfortable admitting happened instead, with his fears of Louis' possible affections for another man hidden behind a more neutral (on the surface) moment.
Christine's dialogue right after, the inclusion of the "yes" at the start of her sentence, and that isn't in the trailer, suggests that Lemuel's sentence wasn't at all what he said, but something Lestat made up or changed to be more palatable for himself.
Another key part of the replacement shot is that Lemuel goes to put on his sunglasses, but only puts them on when out of view of the camera (more on this later).
Next I wanted to discuss the use of the sunglasses by both Lestat and Lemuel. As a metaphor they act as a shield or partial mask, as they literally cover a character's eyes and make them harder to read/ less emotional when that character wants to downplay their reaction. It's also very much a pointed metaphor since they serve no actual purpose for either vampire who are meeting in a somewhat dimly lit room.
The first time we see Lemuel with the sunglasses properly on, is when Lestat questions the nature of the relationship between him and Louis, and Louis agrees with his assumption. Lemuel himself doesn't contribute to the answer (either verbally or non verbally), even though Lestat addressed both of them together when asking about their relationship. Note how the photograph is once again cut off so the illusion of an upside down city is visible again.
Lemuel's sunglasses are also similar in proportion and colour to Lestat's, his eyes obstructed from the audience's view with a stoic expression, he's all business.
The next shot after the reveal of Louis' involvement with Lemuel, Lestat taunts Louis with his own words, to find out if Louis has a new companion. Even though Lestat is addressing Louis, he's looking at, and tilted towards where Lemuel is sitting (out of frame). Most importantly, Lestat's right hand is raised towards Lemuel, first uncurled in a goading 'come fight me' gesture, then curled almost like exercising his hand in a precursor to making a fist when Louis responds that Lemuel is not his companion. From Lestat's expression, we can extrapolate that he most likely doesn't believe Louis.
It's also interesting that the majority of the time when Lestat gestures with his right hand, it's in relation to Lemuel but his left hand (closest to his heart) is mostly reserved for Louis.
The scene proceeds with Louis describing his relationship with Lemuel, using the phrase "emotionally unavailable" to imply a lack of intimacy.
Note how the photograph's distortion is still visible and hasn't been corrected when this dialogue occurs, a confirmation that this sequence has been revised by Lestat.
Also important is how Lemuel's head is tilted towards Lestat, in a 'challenge accepted' kind of way, his body language visually confirms he's acknowledging Lestat as an opponent.
The last time Lestat is in view before he puts on his sunglasses again, he gifts concert tickets to Louis and Lemuel. He addresses Louis using his alias to distance them, and he refers to Lemuel as Louis' "esquire", an important distinction as this is the first and last time he addresses Lemuel directly.
An esquire can be defined in two distinct ways; 1. A barrister at law, which makes sense as Lemuel is performing as Louis' lawyer/ legal representation even if we're never given a proper introduction as to who he is or what his title is, we can understand from context what role he occupies in this scene. But why esquire? There are plenty of synonyms for lawyer without any other double meanings that Lestat could have used to address Lemuel, why choose esquire specifically? 2. A medieval knight's attendant, this second meaning is meant to land as an insult, Lestat is calling Lemuel (Louis') inexperienced boy, a youth who is playing at being a knight but isn't actually one, with the implication that he will be unable to satisfy Louis.
An insult that Lemuel understands immediately, as the next time he's in view of the camera, he visibly grimaces through his frown, the first and last time he expresses a negative emotion on his face, as he's stayed purposefully neutral before this moment. In this shot, the photograph is once again revealed to be a city's reflection implying that this confrontation between Lemuel and Lestat has a basis in the more accurate version of this scene (that we have yet to see).
The proceeding shot is the first time Lestat is in frame with the sunglasses on again, it's here that Lemuel returns the insult by implying he's impressed with Lestat's "healthy margins" despite the "size of his tour", which is exactly what it sounds like; a dig at Lestat's you know what. The insult definitely lands, as Lestat's chin is angled towards Lemuel in a challenging way, but his right hand is kept mostly under the table this time, with the glimpse we see of it looks clenched in a fist similar to how Lemuel's (also right) hand predominantly in frame looks closed (like a fist) even if he's not actually closing his hand (the camera is positioned to make it look like it is) = two challengers facing off.
Meanwhile Lestat's left hand is stretched out enough to seem like he's almost touching the glimpse of Louis' shoulder in the foreground, creating a visual connection between them, trying to bridge the distance between them, a last grasp for Louis before the meeting ends.
Remember that in the trailer it was Louis who initiated that first (and only) contact with Lemuel, but in this sequence in episode 2, it's Lemuel who touches Louis' arm, also the only time they physically make contact. Interestingly Lestat is kept in frame when Lemuel first reaches for Louis in the foreground, the illusion of him touching Louis with his stretched hand is challenged with Lemuel literally touching Louis, this carries through in the next shot, this time with Lestat's shoulder at the edge of the frame, almost but not quite touching Louis, as if he's unable to allow the image of Louis and Lemuel touching without trying to impose himself onto Louis (this also happens in the 2nd moment in the trailer that was omitted from the episode).
The final moment I want to discuss is the first shot of the scene where all four parties are in frame, and which takes place moments before the scene ends when Lestat leaves. Look at how Lestat and Lemuel are positioned diagonally across from the other, how they're both wearing sunglasses in the first shot they share a frame, and are also the only two to be touching the table (gripping in Lestat's case).
Even though we (the listener of the failure records) are visually suggested (by Lestat) to view this scene as a confrontation between himself and Louis, on closer inspection the role of his opponent/ rival is in actuality Lemuel, with the two of them positioned as competing challengers for Louis(' affections).
For those paying attention, you'll see how this wide shot frames the entire room except for the city reflection painting, which is only shown partially, a reminder that in every single frame of the scene depicted in episode 2, we have not once seen this photograph completely. Which is very much intentional, as it's a visual marker to let us understand that we don't have the full picture just yet = this scene has been purposefully given to us in a redacted and disjointed viewing by Lestat, in order to minimise what he doesn't want to admit, and emphasise what he wants to distract us with.
I can't wait to watch the full unredacted version of this scene! Or as close as we can get of course, memory is fallible and less objective than we wish it was.
One of the funniest things to me about Armand portraying Lestat as Harlequin in the episode 0203 flashback, and Lestat later vehemently refuting it, is not so much that it is an insult (Lestat was always Lelio, and Armand knows it) and a hilarious one at that (portraying Lestat as the 'clown' character, as a buffoon).
No what gets me every time is the irony of it being Harlequin, who aside from being perhaps the best known (and well loved!) character of the commedia dell'arte tradition, is also the ONE character Armand seems to mirror the most himself.
Hear me out
Anne Rice in not subtle in the books about the similarities between Lestat and Lelio, both the aristocratic devilishly handsome young lovers archetype, who falls in love easily and desperately. It is perfect, so much so it becomes a major theme in The Vampire Lestat (Lelio Rising)
And while this is the most important parallel, it seems to me a waste to not apply this as a lens from which to explore other characters and their dynamics in the Vampire Chronicles and the TV show, especially given the sheer influence of Commedia on the literary world at large - Shakespeare anyone?
I might explore others at a different point, but first back to Armand as Harlequin:
Harlequin, or Arlecchino, as he is known in the Italian tradition, like the rest of the character gallery of Commedia, has undergone a lot of change throughout the years, and there is not one single iteration which is the 'true' form of Harlequin. However, he is perhaps the one character's whose role in the plays shifted the most.
Though his exact origins are contested, he is often connected to medieval devil and demon imagery (Arlichino from Dante's Inferno or the Hellequin stock character in French Passion Plays, who lure the souls of the damned into Hell).
In early Commedia, he is then conceived of as a poor man out of Bergamo, who finds himself in Venice in the service of a vecchi (wealthy older men, Masters) often Pantalone. Importantly this Harlequin is an immigrant and an outsider, who does not have the literacy and refinement of the aristocratic vecchi or inamorati - and he othered and looked down upon because of it. In these iterations, he is a zanni character (servant/clown archetype), whose main role is that of a comedic side character, whose involvement may impede or facilitate the plotting of the young lovers (inamorati archetypes) or the vecchi but often by sheer accident or at least without skillful plotting of his own. He is defined by his hunger and has a fair share of his own amorous pursuits.
In later traditions, however, it is Harlequin who takes center stage and becomes a romantic hero in his own right (e.g. in the harlequinades of British Pantomine and other pantomine traditions, like the Danish. In Tivoli Gardens in Copenhagen there is still a pantomine theatre, where the tradition is being kept alive and well!). Here he is much more refined and cunning than in his zanni era - and more often than not wins the heart of his beloved.
Does any of this remind you of anyone?
As this is already turning out to be ridiculously long rant, I will stick to the highlights:
Armand is an immigrant to the city of Venice, where he is the devoted (and innocent) servant to his Master
Armand also has a dark past with the Children of Darkness, whose rituals and devil antics are reminiscent of the stories of the Wild Hunt (French Hellequin)
Armand has become a fan-favourite so much so that even Anne Rice herself had to bring him back to life and give him his very own book.
Originally a side-character in Interview with the Vampire, Armand has become integral to both book and show canon, and his antics does indeed derail the romantic pursuits of the main characters on more than one occasion (for better or worse)
I'd argue that Armand is a romantic hero, with romantic plots and story archs that don't involve Louis or Lestat
He goes from being somewhat sheltered and ignorant of the modern world (from what we are told!) when Lestat 'liberates' him from under the catacombs of Paris, to becoming one of the vampires most involved with the modern age and with humans
And perhaps the biggest parallel of the all - the theme of hunger. Trying to pin down Armand (much like Harlequin) as a character is notoriously difficult, but if there is one thing that encapsulates him, it must be hunger. He hungers for love, connection, belonging. He longs to be seen, to be known. He hungers for knowledge and for the understanding which has eluded him most of his long life.
