Undoubtedly, a great deal of the issues with The Vampire Lestat started with the unearned Loustat reunion in the IWTV season 2 finale. It dismissed any expectation of accountability from Lestat, especially regarding anti-Blackness, and turned Armand into a singular villain to be uncritically reviled within the show's universe & by the fans.
It didn't make sense to allow Lestat that level of absolution after only revealing that Armand directed the trial/play & that Lestat saved Louis at the last minute. What happens in the books is irrelevant; they completely overhauled most of the trial for this adaptation. Filling in the blanks that way only creates more holes.
Why did Lestat cross the Atlantic in the mid-1900βs to return to the theatre?
Why did he rehearse for however long without any attempt to contact Louis?
How did they capture his voice so well? Did he contribute to the script?
Why didnβt he try for Claudia?
Did he always know that being sentenced meant immediate death?
Where did he go afterwards? Thereβs still no indication that he saved Louis from his slow, painful death via βbanishment.β Thatβs still Armand as far as we know. And I believe Louisβd be able to differentiate between Armand & Lestatβs blood, if he didnβt see them. Armand also colluded with his revenge against the coven by not warning them.
What were Louis & Lestat doing in the year+ between the final interview and the publication of Daniel's book? There are several lengthy steps taken after a book's content is secured before it can be released. Daniel was working from Talamasca documents, loose notes & interview recordings. Did Louis not think to ask questions about their daughter's public murder in the meantime? We joke about Louis being incurious, but that's crazy by even his standards.
In their mediation scene, Louis reminds Lestat that he did get on a boat, and he did memorise linesβa callback to his and Armand's confrontation with Lestat in that Parisian cave. Are there any caveats that reduce Lestat's culpability? Why, then, did it take his anger at the book to drive them apart again?
How is Armand the only one of the 2 widely considered a true villain by the cast, crew, & fandom?
Critics were flagging this outcome for its problems since it aired, by the way:
This framing holds until the finale episode, when there's a big reveal. Previously, it appeared that Louis's lover Armand saved him from execution when he was found guilty by a trial of other vampires. But actually, Lestat was the one who saved Louis.
TWIST! This is a surprise, but only a mild one.* Lestat has long treated Louis as a possession, so it's perfectly in character that he'd want to prevent that possession's destruction. He notably does not save Claudia from the same trial, which lines up with the way he sees her as an obstacle to Louis's affection.
At first, the purpose of this reveal appears to be breaking up Louis and Armand. That's sad, since it was nice to have at least one healthy relationship in the show,* but it doesn't affect the message too much. But then Louis meets back up with Lestat, and the two of them act as if everything is great. Louis even apologizes for judging Lestat too harshly. Triumphant music plays.
Excuse me, what? From a show with such a firm handle on how abuse works, this is surreal to watch. Are we meant to believe that Lestat has changed his ways because he did one good deed? It's not even that great a deed; Louis was only on trial because of Lestat in the first place. The show does highlight the unreliability of memory, but I really doubt we're supposed to think that the abuse didn't happen.
It's always possible that this is supposed to be Louis falling back under his abuser's spell. The scene isn't framed that way, but sometimes miscommunications happen. However, it appears that the show's next season will focus on Lestat as a cool rock and roll guy. So the most likely explanation is that Lestat will now be cast as a sympathetic character we can cheer for, just like in the books.
β Five Stories That Almost Make a Great Point: Interview with the Vampire by Oren Ashkenazi
With the production of this trial, Armand platformed not only Louisβ shitty white ex-boyfriend, but also other white and non-Black vampires and humans, to indulge in the racist torture of Louis and Claudia. The trial was one last bombardment of violent white-faced racism, poisoning Louis to the world so he would retreat into the safety of the eager coffin that is Armand. In this way, Armand cleaned up Lestatβs mess and succeeded where Lestat failed. He isolated Louis by eliminating Claudia. Lestat couldnβt own Louis so he broke him, and after the trial Armand owned the pieces left of him.
There is still room for ambiguity in the text about who really saved Louisβ itβs really only Danielβs theory backed by the damning working script that makes anything else Armand says impossible to believeβ but post-finale interviews with most of cast and crew confirm Lestat as Louisβ saviour. It does feel bit bizarre to argue in Armandβs case on this one detail (it doesnβt even do him any favours!), but to reiterate: positioning Lestat as Louisβ saviour from the racist trial he co-wrote and most definitely co-produced drains so much conviction out of any commentary made in the previous episode on racist intimate partner violence perpetrated by white abusers.
β Armand, colonialism, and the weaponisation of anti-Blackness by Durr-e-'Adan HaqueΒ
snowghoul
annaxmalina
discoholicmusic
andulkaphoto
ellievsbear
