#jim stanek | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

shadowsong26x · 1 year

Text

so i have now watched all of s1 of the new interview with the vampire tv show and i have Thoughts XD

((i don’t have amc+, but people i petsit for do, so i watched the first half of the season a few weeks ago and then caught up on the rest this week)).

first, some quick and largely nonspoilery stuff:

this is my absolute favorite incarnation of louis. he’s...admittedly not my favorite. i don’t dislike him, he just...doesn’t interest me very much. ((especially in the film; idk what brad pitt was doing but he certainly wasn’t making louis Interesting. jim stanek in the musical did his level best but even there.)) ETA: they do seem to have written out his pyromaniac tendencies, apart from that one time he lit a fire to make a Point in daniel’s direction, which is kind of a shame. but otherwise, definitely my favorite louis, as interesting as he can be made for me.

i really love everything they did with grace and the rest of louis’ human family. which quite possibly contributes to point 1? also, reverting to the backstory established in the book re: paul, where every other adaptation has gone in a different direction.

i knew going in that i was probably going to love everything they’re doing with daniel and i was not at all disappointed. all of the framestory bits, everything going on there, was Amazing.

i do have somewhat mixed feelings about aging claudia up to 14. i know it was done for at least partially for practical reasons, since they needed to cast an adult actress and 14 was as young as they could credibly go, and just barely young enough to still hit the same emotional/storyline notes, but...idk. (especially after watching some of the special insight/commentary things, with the emphasis on being Perpetually Going Through Puberty, it felt a little weird) bailey bass was incredible and i think they did really interesting things (for the most part), but that’s one of the choices i have mixed feelings about. (in the stage version and in the film, she’s 10/11; i think the actress on broadway was 15 or 16? but stage is different from tv is different from film. obviously there’s no adaptation that’s going to keep her 5/6, but.)

(almost) all the little bits and pieces of Lore scattered throughout. i have zero interest in the mayfairs, but them getting namedropped right in the beginning was pretty great. (i’ve read merrick and blackwood farm, and i think...lasher? one of the actual mayfair trilogy books; that was enough to tell me that it’s not for me) and, of course, marius, nicki and gabrielle, those who must be kept...just excellent.

some more detailed (and spoilery) stuff behind the cut. mostly relating to episodes 5-7, with the accompanying Warnings for domestic and sexual violence. as well as some speculation/thoughts on where things could go from here.

so, first, the obvious thing that Everyone Has Opinions About--the stuff at the end of s5, where lestat beats the crap out of louis.

this is...another thing i have kind of mixed feelings about.

i 100% understand what they were trying to do, and they did it well. it didn’t feel out of place or gratuitous; it was extreme but lestat is a pretty extreme dude. and the awkward tension of the pseudo-reconciliation/louis taking lestat back in episode 6 played out really well. and while i don’t 100% like the implication that there was never any affection or love between claudia and lestat, that scene on the train after everything had fallen apart was just. Incredible.

(also, the way lestat Clearly knew the attack was coming when he asked louis for that last dance, even before the antoinette reveal)

however.

my concern here is...there’s a limit, you know? a point at which, when we get lestat’s point of view (which we will; they already made it explicit that he didn’t permadie then and also the references to future plot threads/characters and the fact that amc+ has the Entire Series to make)...anyway, there’s a point at which him saying “that’s not actually what happened, here’s my version” stops being credible. at least in the ways it’s supposed to play out in terms of lestat being someone we like, someone whose love story we want to end well.

and i think that the show came right the fuck up to that limit, if not actually crossing over. we’ll see how they handle it in future seasons, but...yeah.

basically, taking s1 on its own, everything about that scene and the buildup to it and the aftermath of it works really, really well. but in the context of the larger story they’re trying to get into and tell...i’m not so sure it does.

second, the scene where bruce/killer sexually assaulted claudia. i know it was offscreen/the pages were ripped out of the diary/etc. but that felt gratuitous. i appreciated the continuity nod/reference, i appreciated the introduction of a relatively minor vampire who most people have forgotten, but...idk, it felt like Rape As Drama in all the Problematic ways to me.

third, rashid.

so, uh, a few days ago, before i actually watched these episodes, i reblogged a gorgeous photoset of the scene where louis cuts lestat’s throat. i added the following tags (among others):

#yeah i kind of knew but this being ep. 7 of 8 really does mean we're not getting my precious murder kitten armand until next season #ah well

SO THAT’S WHAT I GET FOR READING OUT OF CONTEXT SPOILERS AND MISSING THE BIG ONE XD

((also i was wrong about the number of episodes but that’s less important))

the funny thing is--after watching the first couple episodes, i actually considered the idea? i mean, lestat is the only character introduced so far who matches his book description (i think even daniel was described as a blond in the books but it’s been a while), and rashid has some of that--armand tends to have a fairly quiet affect until he goes apeshit, and sometimes even then, and rashid had the right Vibe. plus, he’s pretty much immediately associated with marius via the painting, also the Knowledge of his relationship with daniel in the books...So.

but i rejected that idea for reasons i cannot remember XD possibly because ‘why would armand play the rashid role’ or something along those lines.

all that aside, i am Thrilled. armand is and pretty much always has been my favorite. i think the only exception is the second movie which Does Not Exist anyway, but that’s mostly because he’s Barely Present and you wouldn’t know he’s even in it if you didn’t read the cast list, iirc. even in the stage musical, which is not my favorite version of him (because he gets a pretty significant villain upgrade/villain ball type stuff in ways that don’t entirely jive with everything else he is), he has probably my favorite song in the entire show. i rewound and rewatched the bit where he’s just quietly taking his gloves off for the Reveal and just. yesssss.

it also puts a pretty hilarious spin on all the prior scenes, since we know louis can carry on a telepathic and physical conversation at once. especially the one where louis is feeding on armand (which...like...yes, in this version vampires can have and enjoy sex unlike in the books so feeding off each other isn’t Quite as much of a metaphor as it is in the books but...like...insert ‘right in front of my salad’ joke here)

i am a little curious about what shifting all of that in the past sequence to the 1940s will do, but not necessarily in a bad way. we already know they get to paris probably after it’s liberated (i didn’t catch the date in claudia’s journal but i know it was 1945). i also know that the grand guignol (which the theatre des vampires is at least partially based on) was starting to fade at that point (after the horrors of the two world wars, that kind of macabre theatre du bizarre wasn’t really a Thing anymore, to much of it had happened in reality).

i also--having louis introduce armand as the ‘love of his life’ was certainly. a Choice. it makes me wonder exactly what went down in this version with claudia’s destruction; what kind of lies armand is telling louis (or louis, who in this version has a Truly Profound capacity for self-deception, has told himself). that’s something i’m reserving judgment on but cautiously kind of...mixed to negative feelings about it. louis and armand did spend a few decades together in book canon, but the way louis talks about him here is a bit More than that and i’m not 100% sure it works.

also noticed that his timeline was shifted--not by much, relatively speaking, but about 30-50 years. ((which i noticed earlier, since tintoretto was a bit later than marius is supposed to be in the books; marius in his renaissance painter guise is a contemporary of boticelli there, who died a few years before tintoretto was born)). which doesn’t really make a huge different, it’s just interesting. especially since lestat’s timeline doesn’t seem to have shifted much, if at all. except possibly expanding the time he spent in paris before magnus abducted him. louis also refers to him as being in his 20s, so presumably he was slightly older when he was turned (which would make sense given the way claudia was aged up--yes, there’s a World of difference between 14 and 17, and armand in the books can dress up or dress down to appear anywhere between his actual age and mid-twenties but still) that part matters even less, but it is something i noticed.

anyway, my precious murder kitten armand making a semi-surprise appearance in the frame story filled me with glee, even if i have some Questions. i am looking forward to seeing more of him next season.

a few other miscellaneous thoughts:

i am curious about what they’re going to do with gabrielle, if/when they get to her. she’s been referenced, very briefly, but while lestat seems to have told claudia and louis about nicki, gabrielle hasn’t been mentioned since that family dinner in the first episode. i love gabrielle, and while i understand the reasoning behind it (it’s like the Only major story change from the movie that doesn’t exist that makes any sense to me), i really hope they don’t cut her out.

also that movie theatre scene about the uniforms was...another thing that felt weird and slightly gratuitous? not on the level of the stuff with killer, but.

and curious about how they’ll handle those who must be kept. given some of the origin changes...iirc, akasha was originally babylonian, not egyptian, and came to egypt to marry enkil? i wonder if they’ll include that or cut it.

anyway, overall, i am Pleased with how this is going and looking forward to season 2 a lot. we’ll get to paris, and armand in the past, and claudia’s destruction, lestat’s (first) resurrection...while i have some quibbles and some Questions, mostly i am just Excite for what comes next.

(still probably won’t watch the mayfair witches, though i might check out other tie-ins if they do rameses or violin or servant of the bones or any of the others. oncle julien why.)

#interview with the vampire spoilers #iwtv spoilers #season 1 thoughts

7 notes · View notes