Also, we know Louis stalks Lestat's movements on social media, so I'm really curious to know what he thinks about all this
The problem isn't that Lestat was shot. He is not sad about that.
He is sad, because Christine was hurt. Others were hurt. Others he likes. Because of his actions.
He is staring at his hand there, because he knows what that means, he knows what he has to do - and that makes him sad.
He has to let them go.
And, as a side note?
That stigmata-like hand wound is no coincidence. Neither are the ones on his chest there.
They are supposed to invoke the image of Christ, the "messiah", something Lestat is likened to in the books, repeatedly, and it is referencing the sacrifice that Lestat is about to make.
What was that Lestat saying something about his brother and Magnus?? Didn't get the meaning
Okay, so, he has that "makeshift party" there, right? For the turn of the century?
Consisting of
cabbage for his brother and father
moldy bread for Armand
cake for Marie Antoinette
the violin for Nicki
an empty setting for Gabriella
no setting for Marius
and ....
William Blake's painting "The number of the Beast is 666" for Magnus.
Meaning he is literally placing Magnus as the Devil there.
Now, what Lestat actually says there is hugely interesting:
"But Magnus, his hand is wandering down my older brother's pants."
Magnus never put his hand down Gregoire's or Antoine's pants. He did, however, put them down Lestat's.
This is a reframing of a transgression, of what happened to Lestat into "this kind of party" setup, pushing what happened at someone else, distancing himself from the events, through that reframing.
In TVL, Lestat reframes what happned to him as almost love, only in later books he puts the name "rape" to what happened to him, in the last trilogy he STILL has PTSD flashes from it all.
So this way of... rejecting what happened and reframing it into something else is actually quite in line with canon (just very, very condensed, in a way).
Interestingly, this is also something that we were shown in the trailer that Gabrielle did to him - who also sexually abused him, after all.
"Are you affronted by these intimacies, Enkil?"
A challenge. He knows (deep down) that Magnus (and Gabrielle) taking the liberties was wrong, but he defiantly challenges the perception of himself as a victim. And he tries to regain some agency by challenging the perception on it, within the reframing of it.
"My hand on your Eve on the eve of a great century."
This is the most interesting part of it for me - because he knows that him touching her / them is also a transgression in a way, no matter that Marius appointed him supposedly on her behalf.
And we see him reach out, carefully, respectfully, yes, but also more intimately than he is supposed to. Knowingly not adhering to the rules Marius set.
He is also very lonely and drawn to her, drawn to touching her, though he knows he shouldn't.
(And of course it is also a nice little word play.)
That said, I found it very interesting how Sheila laid out in the After Dark, that it is precisely this ... gentle and almost longing touching, this caring for them in a way that is way more intimate than Marius did which makes Akasha realize that Lestat may be what she was looking for (later).
Wow, it's the best episode of the season, I can't stop watching it...
I love the scene where Louis asks Lestat to pour blood into his glass.
I think... Lestat likes seeing Louis enjoy his blood. Maybe he thought he didn't like it after so much time.
It's a very potent little thing they share there.
Because Louis had refused Lestat's blood for SO LONG.
Because he had stopped feeding. Because of what happened with Claudia. Because of the separation after. Because of the book.
But Louis loves Lestat's blood. These vampires feel and can read things in the blood. And you betcha there was LOVE in that sip of blood.
And just look at the expressions there. Lestat is just... incredibly relieved/touched that Louis does drink his blood again, and Louis... Louis is just a little bit high on that love, right there.
I think the first anonymous commenter meant that if she’d shown sexual interest in him when he was a child or a teenager — masking it as an expression of love — then it would be clear why he keeps doing what he does. Because he doesn’t know any other way, and the boundaries between a mother’s and a son’s behavior are blurred.But the show depicts them as outcasts in the castle who’ve always stuck together. She didn’t show him any particular affection or interest, but she wanted him to get away from that place — that’s why she paid for his education at the monastery and supported him when he ran off with the actors.
From what we’ve seen in the series, it seems she only developed a sexual interest in him after the wolf. By that point, he was already a grown man who understood the roles they had in each other’s lives: she was the mother, and he was the son. I think that’s why many viewers don’t understand their relationship or why he lets her treat him that way.
If the show clarifies their dynamic in later episodes and gives the audience more context, I think all these questions and the confusion around it will resolve themselves.
As for Jennifer’s words, I wouldn’t put much trust in them. She’s convinced it was all consensual, so…
I swear to god, this try at victim blaming re Lestat really gets on my nerves.
Like, take that shit at justification and wondering "why he keeps doing it" somewhere else.
Like, even without the clarification of upcoming episodes, it should be fucking clear that he feels the shame, that he tries to stop it, but that he still needs her love, and that he is reaching for scraps when no-one ELSE IS THERE FOR HIM.
I think people sometimes forget this is an adaptation. "If Louis does this it's racist, Armand can't do that because it'd be racist, if Eric leaves the show then that's ageist..." The show can make some changes, but this is an adaptation and some things will happen.
It is legitimate to want more Black writers but why do they assume that those hypothetical Black writers will cater to their expectations and head canons? Anusree Roy's favourite character is Nicolas de Lenfent🤷🏾♂️
That... is one of the confounding things about this.
Because of course there are many good reasons to want this. Representation is always a good thing.
But what the people crying foul right now want is token representation, because they think that representation then... would cater to what they want.
Make the changes that they want.
And this thinking is literally only skin-color deep.
Because look at the arguments they bring. They cry foul on language and what the characters did.
And dismiss what Delainey, Sheila or Jacob have said on this. Dismiss what many black fans have said on this.
And no, of course there is no consensus here, and no, of course one cannot speak for everyone, and of course there are people out there who were deeply offended by the language used.
But why weren't they in season 1? When Claudia used much the same language? Just... hidden, supposedly against Lestat?
Why is it a problem now?
And this skin-color-deep thinking is why sooooo many argued for so long that Anusree Roy was brought onto the show to write Armand's backstory - because to them the thought this writer could write for a white character... did not compute. They think that because Anusree is of a certain demographic background that her expertise, too, must be solely on - and limited!!! to - that.
And I find that... extremely offending, actually.
And damaging in a very real-world-sense, beyond anything these people can probably understand.
Because then you will get - and extremely fast, unfortunately, just fucking look at history - back to segregating what people can do or can NOT do - what people can know or not know, what people can feel or not feel or empathize with ... based on their skin color.
Because that is, ultimately, what they argue for.
"You must have black writers to write for black characters". And in the same breath (I have seen it!): "Jacob cannot speak on this, he's mixed".
I don't think I have to comment on that, do I. 😑
And, ngl, the fervor by which some argue tooth and nail on this? Makes me very scared for the future, for them mostly.
I feel like people are really struggling to understand that Louis overstepping wrt Claudia is very much intentional.
Like I’m seeing people upset that they had Louis read Claudia’s diary entries bc it wasn’t his place. YES! It wasn’t his place! The writers know that, Jacob knows that, the audience knows that, and Louis will have to come to terms with that.
And it’s frustrating bc I’m seeing ppl latch onto Jacob saying he has complicated feelings about the scene as a way of saying it shouldn’t have happened. The actors are very attached to these characters, there are times where they struggle with the choices said characters make. But that doesn’t mean it’s not in character.
Yes! Exactly.
That is the point of it all. That's why they did it like that.
I think Lestat was impressed when he saw what Claudia said about the train thing. I think right there Lestat realized that it wasn't that Louis made up the stuff about Claudia... but rather Claudia's manipulation to Louis.
I don't know, I think Lestat felt worse for Louis than for himself
Oh absolutely.
Lestat has always been proud of Claudia. He just didn't know the "why" for the hatred and the things in the books, remember there's a "Claudia, why?" annotation in the pages they showed.
Now he has the answer. And Louis has it, too.
That is what I meant btw when I said that the way they did it was... almost gentle for them both.
Because while Louis maybe should have known better than believe certain lies you really cannot blame him either, because Claudia was his daughter.
And you cannot blame Lestat being offended about the lies either, because he just didn't know why and where they came from, because his memory of their time is a bit different.
(And you cannot blame Claudia for using the means she had at her disposal either, imho.)
And yet... canonically Lestat does not blame Claudia for it, btw. Because he KNOWS what they did to her. That she did not come first.
And as they say so pointedly there: she spared them the ambiguity.
They can carry that guilt now, together, and ... move on.
