Note: Someone correctly pointed out that at (20:25) I referred to a character as “one of the other Azalea players.” That was an oversight on my part and I apologize. The character, as portrayed by Kyle Roussel, was the real-life jazz musician Ferdinand Jospeh LaMothe/Lemott/LaMenthe (aka Jelly Roll Morton). An important figure in the genre’s history, I have included relevant links about him in the description section for the video.

I agree that Lestat is abusive to Claudia and Louis. I disagree that it was a bad choice narratively. Sometimes intense and consuming relationships are also abusive ones. In this adaptation, Lestat is an abuser. He feels like he needs to be stronger than those closest to him in order to stop them from leaving him. He uses that strength to enforce a corrosive intimacy. I see this as very human. Terrible. Broken. But very human. The evil that is this Lestat is not a eldritch evil its an essentially human one. I hope that if they try to redeem this Lestat it comes first as he finally recognizes the harm he has done to those he should love best, that he can never change what he has done, that they are not obligated to forgive him, but that he can try to change his behavior in the future.

I will say, Sam Reid tackles the brat prince part of Lestat perfectly. Right on down to the dramatic strut he does, like the world is his personal runway and he's a top model.

I wonder if Lestat's over-the-top awfulness is due to (spoiler alert) a certain disguised character influencing Louis' story through mental manipulation, threats, etc.

Defiantly agree about Claudia's assault and how the show handled it

I’m sorry, THIS IS HOW I FIND OUT THAT MORBIUS ACTUALLY SAYS “IT’S MORBIN TIME”??? I THOUGHT THAT WAS A JOKE!!

I don't think Lestat nearly killing Louis is out of character for him from the books. Remember Claudia telling Louis "he won't let us leave"? Lestat is never violent to Louis in the original novel, but the threat of violence is constantly hanging over their heads. Apart from the threat of physical abuse, Lestat is an emotional abuser. He forces his own beliefs onto Louis, minimises Louis' thoughts and feelings - it's not in the books, but Lestat calling the interview "whinging, Louis, always whinging" in the film is pretty in character.

i know this is just a difference of opinion and im not the first to say it, but Lestat's character in the books (which i am a HUGE fan of and have been since i was 14) has always read as that of a domestic abuser to me. Abusers can be nuanced characters because in real life abusers are still people. He isnt a "psychopath", and pathologizing abuse isn't always helpful or accurate. the first half of the IWTV book has always read to me as a story of someone escaping an abusive relationship. It might just depend on which version of his characterization one is more attached to, since it changes so much in the books, but this felt perfectly in character to me. You can be sympathetic to his situation while still recognizing his canon book actions for what they were: abusive. You're right that in the book it wasn't physically abusive, mostly emotionally abusive, but it genuinely doesn't seem like that much of a leap to me. It's just the show doing what it has done in other areas as well: taking subtext and making it more explicit. also, on the point of his character seeming messy because he has to be evil but seductive at the same time. anyone who has ever been in an abusive relationship will tell you that abusers ARE seductive and ARE charming and can have moments of real loving kindness. Otherwise, why would people be in those relationships in the first place? The emotional whiplash and not knowing what the reaction could be; the feeling of a roulette where you don't know if you're going to get the loving partner or the monster; thats where a lot of the trauma comes from, just as much as from the acts of violence themselves. I definitely respect mixed feelings on whether this is a good or accurate representation of Lestat's book characterization, but it is 100% a cohesive characterization on its own to me.

The perspective a lot of fans have on Lestat is really wild to me given that he fed on slaves in the first book. His domestic abuse switch up makes perfect sense to me. Rereading the first book last year I saw a much older man prey on a vulnerable younger man. I saw a man who tossed aside his husband once he was bored of him and chased other men and women as entertainment. Jealous possessive Lestat has always been there infront of us. Lestat turned a toddler into a vampire to baby trap the young grieving man he had a toxic relationship with, in book. The show is playing off that. There's nothing sympathetic about Lestat to my nearly 30 year old mind rereading the first book. He had a sad start. Most abusers do. Lestat only toes lines he wants to toe.

no adaptation, no matter how faithful to the source matterial, will satisfy everyone. there are going to be people who hate a section, or a character change or even major story changes.

I believe the reason why the writers took the direction in making Lestat worse then book Lestat is to show just how manipulated Louis actually is by (spoiler alert) “the love of his life”. If I remember correctly ‘you know who’ absolutely hated Lestat way before Louis was even in the picture, and now he is twisting Louis memories to make Louis hate Lestat too.

I have conflicting feelings about the context of episode five, but on the whole I think it works more so than not. I appreciate the premise of your argument regarding the tension between the creators of the show wanting to set Lestat up as the more complex protagonist of the later books and needing him to serve a narrative function in Louis' story. You are absolutely correct, it is messy. But it's messy because Lestat is an eternal enigma. No one can truly know him because of the way Rice's relationship with him as creator evolved over the years, sometimes in contradictory ways. In the novels this unevenness is easier to rationalize because there's a clear correlation between immortality and erratic behavior as sanity erodes. In the adaptations this is much harder to convey because of the constraints of the medium. It can often seem inconsistent because a viewing audience usually isn't afforded the grace of anticipating character shifts in the way a reader is. So while I see the intent, I struggle with reviews that claim that Lestat isn't acting like Lestat. I don't think anyone knows what it means to be Lestat, not the other vampires around him, and not even he himself at times. We all know certain things about him. His sense of humor, his tastes, some likes and dislikes, his intellect. But the one thing no one in universe or otherwise knows is how to predict what he'll do next. You never know which Lestat you're going to get. All this to say that I don't believe domestic violence is off the table for him. Any fan of the series will agree that he's capable of cruelty, manipulation, and emotional abuse. Therefore I don't think it's unreasonable to suppose that a being with immense physical prowess and a demonstrably volatile understanding of love would cross the line to domestic violence. Louis believes he would never cross that line because, like many abuse victims, he can't conceptualize the imminent harm he's in the way of until it's too late. I think if the showrunners had approached the vampire as an allegory for grief as you so eloquently put it, then we would see Lestat's abuse of Louis as more psychological like it is in the books. Because grief is a torment of the mind. But the story we were told in the show is one of twisted seduction, so the harm done needs to be tangible, physical, like the core of their attraction. And that can be hard to reconcile with the beautiful Byronic Brat Prince we've come to know. I do wonder if we hadn't actually seen the fight and it was alluded to gradually throughout the interview and more foreshadowing in Louis' flashbacks then it would've been more palatable. Sometimes seeing the aftermath of a terrible act and being left to come to your own conclusion about what you thought you knew is more nuanced and poignant than witnessing the act itself. I did love Molloy calling Louis' framing of their relationship out. And I'm excited to see how the showrunners and Sam take adapting Lestat further. I think he's great. Sorry for the essay. I'm enjoying your content!

I love this adaptation, faults and all. I think Rolin and the cast brought to life Anne Rice's world and reminding old fans like myself why we loved it in the past. Jacob Anderson and Sam Reid SHINE as the main vampires and seeing them together is like watching a ballet. Baily as Claudia will be greatly missed and older Daniel is KING!!! This Lestat is the Brat Prince we will come to love AND HATE. He is a brat after all and Sam brings all the nuances to his character. I cannot wait for season two!!!!!

Sam Reid as Lestat is the embodiment of a hyper sexual, spoil brat, supermodel prince with serious anger issues and wit for miles and Im here for all of it.

Controversial or not, for me the show brings something new that's cool, they delve into tropes that work for TV like gore/violence and sex, and a lot of the book works better in the book and visually tends to lose appeal or not translates at all or even it's totally inappropriate now, I really didn't want to see a romanticized plantation owner when society is still trying to rewrite history, that slaves benefited from slavery. I think the series reworks changes well for the most part. it can be appreciated as a third thing of its own within the universe.

Lestat in the books confronts Louis about his lies in the book. I think the show already implied Louis is an unreliable narrator.

Keep in mine I’m only about 30 minutes in and I’m not sure if it’s touched on later in the video; I think Lestat’s depiction and constant reference to the first interview is doubling down on the “Louis is an unreliable narraror”. He was an unreliable narrator in the first interview and he is currently in this interview. We do not know the true story because we only have his perspective. I think this is a purposeful choice by the creators.

I think the most important think to remember about this adaptation is that the story is being told through Louis' viewpoint. Its a shame how few people seem to understand the concept of "unreliable narrator". It seems like "I saw it, so it MUST be true." (I feel that although much of the information is coming from Claudia's diaries, Louis is injecting his perspective as he talks to Daniel.) Many of the changes could have been an indication of how Louis' worldview had changed. What we know now about psychology today is vastly different than what we knew in the 1970's. For one, there's a greater public awareness of toxic relationships. So the psychotic behavior we're seeing now could be the result of Louis having a better understanding of Lestat's actions. But, the reverse can also be true: today's psychological paradigms could lead to revisionism on the part of Louis. Our understanding of psychology is sometimes based on societal norms. A famous example is in the DSM I. It listed homosexuality as "a sociopathic personality disturbance." In the DSM II, homosexuality was no long listed as a disorder. Another issue is that we assume that modern psychology is applicable to older societies. Were there differences between modern cognition and 18th century cognition? Modern languages show cognitive relativity; different languages activate different areas of the brain. I think its reasonable that humans may have relative psychology based on the societies they are a part of. It could be that Louis doesn't have the knowledge required to understand Lestat. Also, Louis could be lying to himself. He feels bad about how he failed Claudia, and exaggerating Lestat's monstrousness could be his way of shifting some of the blame. Of course, he wouldn't realize that is what he's doing. And while his companion may be able to read his thoughts, I think he loves Louis too much to want to psychoanalyze him and shatter his illusions. Another possibility: Louis may have toned down the story when he first told it to Daniel. Louis wanted a nuanced story from the beginning. Unfortunately, he was telling that story to a young Daniel would likely have failed to understand that. I don't think Louis ever stopped loving Lestat; kind of a "yes, he did monstrous things, but he wasn't always like that and even though I hate him, I still love him." A young Daniel would have likely seen Lestat as a traditional vampire monster. (Before Anne Rice, there were very few stories with sympathetic vampires.) Yet another possibility: Claudia might have intended for Louis to read her diaries when she wrote them. Painting Lestat as more cruel/evil than he really was might have helped pull Louis away from Lestat. I doubt the show creators were considering these things, but for me it doesn't matter. I am firmly in the "death of the author" camp. I don't really care about what Anne Rice or the show creators intended. I care about what they actually created. I love the Anne Rice novels, and so far, I love the show and find that the changes actually enhance the story.

When I first read IWTV 30y ago, I hated the Lestat character. It wasn’t until TVL that I started liking /loving him. Sam Reid had said on a couple of occasions, “we are doing the books.” So I feel all of what we witnessed reflects that.

I agree and disagree about Lestat. I definitely think Sam Reid is playing him as the nuanced character in the totality of the TVC, but I do agree that he had to be written as a violent psychopath for the reasons stated, and yeah that juxtaposition is jarring. I do also believe that all isn’t as it seems, and we haven’t seen any of this from Lestat’s pov yet.🤷🏽‍♀️ ETA: I think I do agree though that Tomstat’s version was able to retain all of Lestat’s nuance even though he was playing the antagonist from the first book, and yes it’s because Anne wrote the screenplay. I don’t think all the writers on the show necessarily agree when it comes to Lestat’s character and that’s why we’re seeing so many contradictions. I don’t envy how they’ll have to come up with a way to make Lestat sympathetic to get the audience on board for season 3.😬

I think that they can't fully explain the Lestat changes without spoiling later seasons.

Someone saying Lestat and Louis fighting then referencing it as just "a gay black man being beaten up by a white man" scenario is literal injustice to not only the abusive relationship they've been written and described having for literal decades but also them as a character. Louis isn't just "a gay black man", he is a black, gay man who was not-so-consensually turned into a vampire who has been involved in a tug & pull relationship with his maker ( super toxic and traumatized man btw )who is a much older vampire, privileged in knowledge, strength and in skin tone that behaves just as emotionally as Louis. Like, of course he's not going to be a good person. Yes, of course he's MESSY. Of COURSE their toxic relationship was going to show the bad AND the good. It's just that their version of bad days is a violence that is so supernaturally unhinged and raw, of course we'd feel wildly uncomfortable witnessing it. He is a vampire. He is undead. He hasn't been human for centuries already. I don't know what people expect and if at all, this fight was pretty tame to how bad things could've been. Having undead creatures who murder people (sometimes for fun) coming home, cuddling on the couch or having romcom arguments about forgetting their 1000th anniversary like it's a normal Tuesday is just not realistic. Does it sound entertaining? Of course it does but that's what this show was going to be about, it also wasn't what Rice's texts were about either.

On the whole Lestat characterization, I feel like a part of it was wanting a more virtuous Louis and Claudia. I think they were more gray in the original novel and Lestat was constantly seducing and cajoling them down to his level, but the change to make Louis more palatable as a character inevitably had to cast Lestat as even more of a villian. I didn’t find book Louis entirely sympathetic or reliable, but I felt that was part of the appeal. I like that the original story has you horrified that you feel for any of its characters. It might be just me, but I found it a fascinating, deeply uncomfortable read, and I'd love to see an adaptation grapple with that moral horror a little more. (Still not a Lestat apologist)

I loved this series. Though I read the entire chronicles as a teenager (and am currently re-reading them 15 years later to freshen my memory), I had always wanted to see a faithful adaptation of the chronicles. But even as a teen, I knew that a faithful adaptation was a tall order. After the 1994 movie (which my Dad and I still love), we waited decades for a movie series or tv series, but the only thing to show for it was the horrible Queen of the Damned movie. This new show can stand on its own, and may be the best tv adaption any chronicles fan will ever see. So after waiting my whole life, I treasure this show for the great acting, the storytelling, and giving us fans some semblance of the chronicles universe we love.

I do appreciate your takes on this series and I largely agree, or am sympathetic, with most of them. I would like to highlight one defense of the changes to Lestat that you didn’t grapple with and that sort of crystalizes in Amber why the creators included the DV scene. Lestat, as written by Anne Rice IS an abuser. He literally burns down his BF’s house because he’s angry with him (abuse) and commits one definite, and one coded, SA in The Body Thief (I think the house burning is in the body thief as well). The “coded” SA would be the turning of someone into a vampire against their will. Mind you, this comes AFTER he’s supposed to feel guilty about having committed SA in this same novel. The writer of episode 5 actually called out Lestat’s actions in the novel as part of the motivation for including his beating Louis and to me, it works. If you think DV is hard for a character to come back from when adapted from book to screen, try depicting any of those actions on a television show and seeing how the fandom takes it. Just because Anne Rice attempts to explain away or reframe these actions in the text doesn’t mean they’re something other than what they were. I think a lot of book fans have this idea of Lestat in their head clouded in nostalgia but revisit the text and he’s quite a bit worst. Beating Louis is totally in his wheelhouse. I don’t think the arbitrary “there is a line he won’t cross” defense works when taking ALL of book Lestat’s actions into account. I also think there’s room in this discussion for media literacy. Not to suggest you don’t have good media literacy, it seems fantastic from your content. But I’m reminded of another creator’s video on how book fandoms often react when POC are cast to play characters who are explicitly of that same race in the books. Like Rue from Hunger Games. I think there is something to the way our brains process and remember characterizations in print and will form impressions of them that may not hold up to black and white readings of the text.

One of the main things about the first book is that Louis is a very very unreliable narrator so I think they are going to do something about that about Lestat, we haven't seen anything from his pov, specially with Armand still involved with Louis

The physical reaction I had when you did the Lestat the Musical pop up. I love that adaptation. Its so bad that it makes me love it more. Great songs, bad script, almost accurate. My heart will always hold the tv show as the top adaptation no matter how off it is. It's so fun and new and sorta brings a new story out.

I thought the show was amazing. At the end of the first episode I was hooked.

I loved this adaptation and really loved what they did with Claudia, too bad a different actress will be taking over the role, I do love Bailey Bass.

I think it’s cool to legitimise changes to the story in the eyes of fans. It shows that you know what the audience might be feeling so you give them a resolution to what you anticipate they are going to think. I’ve always admired writers who do that. It’s like having a distant conversation with the audience.

I haven’t read the Vampire Chronicles yet but I really love how both Tom and Sam depict Lestat, he’s such a multifaceted character. I tend to enjoy all versions of him, but I do think it’s important to not overlook how different his dynamic is with Louis now that he’s black, I appreciate when non-black ppl acknowledge that and it’s good that y’all pointed that out

I disagree with how you view this as a second interview with Daniel. It gives Daniel more agency and the ability to call Louis out on bullshit. We know that he is a very unreliable narrator based in The Vampire Lestat. We need Daniel to not fan girl over him like the original Daniel

trauma does not make you stronger - the strength a person has to endure and overcome an experience comes from within, never credit that resilience to another

On the one hand, the hints and setup are all over the place that Lestat's character assassination is the result of an unreliable narrative...but they've certainly made a confused mess of things in the process.

As someone who’s been in a gay toxic first relationship with an abusive narcissist who was a lot older than me, I honestly felt very seen by this show. The grooming, the gaslighting, the seemingly extreme contradictions in personality, the flash mood swings, Louis’ guilt for hating him because he can still see the good. As a metaphor for an abusive relationship, it’s excellent, and I think it explains Louis’ decision to kill Lestat better than the book did. I think Lestat wasn’t completely “done” as a character in IwtV, and that the Lestat from the show makes more sense for that story. The Lestat that he becomes feels like a completely different character, and that will be his character arc in the next seasons and spin offs they manage to make.

FINALLY!!! I have been searching for an essay about this exact thing ever since the series came out! I took an upper-level class at my uni this past spring on film and adaptation, and I have so many thoughts. I'll come back to this comment after I've finished the video to discuss! I am so excited! EDIT: Re: Lestat and That Episode. I needed a content warning on that episode from the show. There should have been one, full stop. It was horrific, and I could barely get through it. It was grossly irresponsible not to include one. I agree with you that the show's Lestat is suffering from the fate of having to fulfill too many roles, and I hope that he gets some time to be fleshed out and solidified once (and if, please, please, don't be an if) we get to season three, since that's supposedly planned to be more from his perspective ala The Vampire Lestat. I just fucking love Lestat, and I love Sam Reid's portrayal of Lestat. His chemistry with Jacob Anderson is off the charts, and when he gets to have fun with the role it is an absolute joy to watch! His speech in the last episode genuinely makes me tear up every time. But I just cannot reconcile *that* episode with the Lestat from even the rest of the season. The creatives have said that part of the reason it's so extreme is to show how much Lestat has been holding back, which feels gross to me. I suppose it could also serve to foreshadow the dangers of the old world vampire Louis and Claudia are about to encounter. I agree with your interpretation of the possible reasons plotwise why they decided to go such a drastic route. But I am in no way a Lestat apologist. He is a monster, he announces it frequently. No matter how human his fears, no matter how charming he is... Lestat is a narcisstic, possessive, toxic, bratty vampire. He is not a good person... at all! However, the thought I have is that in the last episode, it's hinted at that Louis' memory may be flawed... and we know Armand has mind powers (sorry, forgetting the technical term), and a vested interest in keeping Louis for himself. It could be that the domestic violence that occurred in *that* episode wasn't exactly how it went down, considering how wildly out of character it felt. Does that excuse it? Personally, absolutely the FUCK not. Again, there needed to be a content warning. Now, there is the complication that this scene is shot from Claudia's perspective... is what we see what was written in her diary? In which case, yes, it really was that bad and I am just as upset about it as everyone else. I am upset about it regardless. I just hated how extreme and out-of-pocket the scene was, and I am trying to hold onto some hope that the show's Lestat did not do what was shown. I am hoping and praying it was some sadistic, jealous Armand-y mind control, memory manipulation bullshit. Because if not... they are going to have some SERIOUS trouble making Lestat even remotely sympathetic going forward, even to those of us who know and love his character.

lestat in the show is a natural progression or "unmasking" of the un balanced power dynamic and predatory characterisation. Him snapping one day makes sense since his violence was shown earlier. louis really thought "oh he wont do that to me, he loves me". I think how uncomfortable the scene feels is kinda the point.

UKposts randomly brought up your vid today. Not only do I love your lengthy analysis as I am a huge Anne Rice vampire fan, but big props to you for sourcing all the other UKpostsrs who have covered this and I have watched! **subscribed**

It's been a while, but I do seem to recall the lines that Lestat would or wouldn't cross in the books shifting sometimes-depending on his mood/temper/other-extenuating-factors/etcetera, and or depending upon which point in his character development/journey or whatever he was at or not exactly. Like, I seem to recall him deciding at certain points to try and stop doing certain things that he had done previously-or deciding to actually throw up his hands and not give a rip anymore and actually DO certain things that he previously wouldn't have. (Both good things and bad things, depending on the incident.) And one could say that this scene is not necessarily that far departed in some ways from what Lestat does in the books later on to David, a character that he supposedly also loved at least to some extent or another. But, honestly, maybe it really was just that they didn't want what Louis and Claudia did to have been that much worse than anything that Lestat had done. Even if they hadn't shown us glimpses of Lestat's backstory and such that we didn't get in the books until book two or later. Maybe they didn't want Lestat to have to forgive Louis for anything any more horrible than Louis would need to forgive Lestat for. Who knows. And, while it is true that abuse is still abuse even between two vampires, it is also true that the implications are not necessarily the same if you know that what you're doing can't kill them versus if you simply don't care whether what you're doing might/could kill them or not(still horrible, yes, but slightly differently)-AND it is also true that vampires who are hundreds of years old are capable of doing truly devastating/destructive things with much less intentional effort than a human would be capable of, it's kind of like how easily a small child could seriously injure or even kill a tiny kitten even without any deliberately malicious intent behind their actions at all, nevermind if they actually lost control of themselves because something triggered an intense motion they weren't particularly great at self-regulating yet or whatever. (However, Lestat's actions in the tv series certainly do cross the line on that much more than say Edward Cullen's actions during Bella's birthday party, where Edward tries to push Bella out of harm's way but accidentally uses too much of his inhuman strength without realizing it and sends her flying across the room way further than he intended to.) But, honestly, why is it more horrible that Louis(or the audience) should have to overlook or forgive Lestat doing these horrible things specifically to him personally than it is for Louis to need to forgive or overlook Lestat doing these horrible things to other characters? That's a pretty slippery slippery line to tread, I think. Even with the books, there are many readers who find Lestat unforgivable, even after learning all the internal thoughts/motivations and backstory that Louis didn't have in the first book. Everybody has their own lines across which a character becomes too unlikable, and that's fine. But, morally speaking, I don't think it's worse for Lestat to be domestically violent than it is for Lestat to be a brutal murderer and/or a sadistic torturer-and letting letting characters be horrible to everyone and anyone else except their love interest can foster toxic real life mindsets where people will stay with and/or protect someone as long as that person only does terrible things to other people and never to their partner, as if that makes it any less terrible. As long as they actually show Lestat self-reflecting and genuinely remorseful and actively making efforts to change his behavior in the future so that he legitimately betters himself and isn't still behaving that horribly later on in the story(like if we make it to events later in the series than Louis' interview) I don't mind it-although I also really can't blame anyone who does mind it either. But that's just me, I guess.

Really great video essay! I watched this show last year without having read the novels, and for me personally I felt Lestat’s character was fairly well executed and while the DV scene was brutal, it didn’t feel completely out of left field as a viewer with no knowledge of the books. Although you brought up some very good points which make me want to go back and read the books and watch the 90s movie.

One little thing, Anne Rice change her attitudes about her vampires when Charlaine Harris books and later adaptation True Blood become popular, is an irony seeing that Harris books are mostly based on Anne Rice books, her vampires continue to be asexual, but their sex stopped being metaphorical, but gradually become literal, hell, in her last book, The Prince Lestat, Lestat not only had sex with a woman, but also had a child with her.

I have to preface this with saying that I have never read the books but I understand the profound love the fan base has for the books and understand the base storyline. I wish the interaction with killer was framed more as her realizing that despite Lestat being cruel to her, Louis was there to protect her. There was a buffer, a safety net. I would have been fine in writing and having the scene framed that way (even rewriting it to have Claudia be smarter and escape killer which would foreshadow her taking down Lestat). I also wonder after the reveal of Armand and how jailed Louis is by him, if Armand hasn’t influenced Louis’ memory as well. I am have no doubt that Lestat was toxic and emotionally abusive to Louis or that there probably was a “fight” of some kind; but, the writers have set a precedent of unreliable narrators.

I really love watching sober points of view of the show, louis is a character that for me only grows in the show but its one who takes the greatest negative criticism. and I understand the point about lestat. particularly one of the things that captivated me in the show was his unpredictability, he's the horror that sustains the dynamics of the story, someone I would love to know the origin of.

Lestat brutally reminding us that he’s still a fucking monster was my favorite scene ! literally my favorite character long live episode 5 he’s the type of character you love to hate and watching him get what he deserves at the end was so fun

as someone who hasn’t watched the show but who is a major fan of the books i think your analysis of lestat really hits the nail on the head - especially with what you’ve said/what i’ve heard of him in the show. the lestat we see in interview is fundamentally different from the lestat we see in the vampire lestat/queen of the damned/etc. because of who’s perspective the story is from. interview is from louis’ perspective - it’s his story, his recollection of events, his perception of how lestat is/was during that time period, while tvl and qotd are written by lestat - so the version of him we see is completely different. we know that both louis and lestat are (in the novels) extremely unreliable narrators (lestat’s criticisms of louis’ retelling of events in the beginning of tvl is a pretty big example) and we also know that lestat is kind of in love with himself (think the opening paragraph of tvl or that one line in qotd where he says that he promises he’s not making it up when people say that they love him/think he’s beautiful he just knows it due to “infallible psychic power”) so the differences between these versions of lestat - while also probably being somewhat merited to anne rice simply changing the character as the series went on - can also be assigned to the fact that what louis and lestat say just can’t be taken at face value. again, i haven’t watched the show so i’m not 100% sure how well this is reflected in the adaptation (i’m just going off what has been said in this video and what i’ve heard from other fans) but the ideas of blending the lestat from the later books in the series with the lestat of iwtv just…isn’t a good idea because they’re so different from one another due to the different perspectives in the books. if you go with the “truth” of the brat prince from the rest of the vampire chronicles you miss a hugely important part of iwtv but if you stick entirely to lestat from iwtv you have to completely forego that different characterisation from the later books. i think the different characterisation might also be somewhat attributed to lestat’s resting underground for a couple decades/centuries thing so when he wakes up in tvl he’s got a much fresher perspective/zeal/whatever and thus acts a bit differently but that’s probably a whole separate rant :P anyways, thank you so much for this video! it was great!

Justice for Queen of the Damned (2002) 😭 It was so campy, had a dope soundtrack, and Aaliyah 💔 #cultclassic

Hi. Since you like Jacob Anderson's voice, you'd probably like to listen to his songs. He uses the name Raleigh Ritchie. I love the songs " werld is mine", "bloodsport", "keep it simple","time in a tree", well I think l am already a fan😉

I have loved Louis since I was a Sophomore in High school in 2001. I love book version, movie version, TV version.

love this video and you and me simping over jacob anderson, that’s so real

A really good essay, I'm glad to see more discussion of this show! (especially ones like this, that feel nuanced and thoughtful). Considering Lestat, I had this initial idea that the intent of the show is still to portray Louis as an unreliable narrator (as in the book), in that he's telling "the truth" this time around, which means his version of Lestat retains some of the traits he has in the later books. But then still has to also justify to himself why he had to attempt to get rid of him, and went overboard (there's also the whole thing with Armand and how his influence might factor into the story...). I agree with you and others that the violence was overt and absolutely horrifying, so I wonder if the events depicted are what really happened, or just what Louis told Daniel - who constantly seems to be picking apart this new version of events - happened. Which to me feels like an attempt to make the audience question Louis' honesty (I laughed out loud about your comment of Louis looking like he's being held at gunpoint). I guess this would explain why Lestat's characterisation is such a mess. Retconning would be in the spirit of the source material! 😅 But most likely I'm just reaching and what we saw was exactly what happened, if the creators even made a point of addressing the fact that the abuse was shown from Claudia's point of view, as you said here. I'm not really familiar at all about behind the scenes interviews and such, so maybe there's more that I'm unaware of. It's just kind of disappointing since they managed to balance a lot of the other things so well even with the changes. I guess we'll see how things pan out in season 2. Anyway, subscribed and hoping to see more long videos from you!

I think episode five is going to turn into the tower scene in the second half of the book. The one where Lestat comes to Armand for blood and instead he tells him Louis is dead and drops him off the tower. Idk Lestat begging for Louis’s love seems too eerily similar to Armand begging Lestat to give him his love in exchange for his blood🤷🏾‍♀️

I just found you randomly and this is very well done. Thank you!

For me, Louis' guilt over feeding from humans from the get-go made complete sense, as in the prior episode he had expressed how he disliked how he 'preyed' on men's weaknesses, and how it was an obligation to his family that he was a pimp. Lestat offered Louis freedom from his societal constraints during that last scene of ep1, but his offer comes to no fruition, as Louis is now feeding off men in a very intentional, literal way rather than their emotional miseries. regardless in difference of opinion/perception, great video essay! Lots of great conversation is being had about this brilliantly written show

I think for what the show was and lestat was for me Episode five works a little more than I think people would like but then that also makes me more sympathetic to Louis and Claudia at the end and for lestats death (almost) that is a big lightbulb moment for him that he’s got to change and that when we will be seeing the better lestat

Being from a family, which has had it's ups and downs with abuse,... That Lestat vs. Louis fight, really shook me up !!!! I will continue to watch though..❤

The only person who ever put a gun to my head (outside Army war games) was a rich, white guy I made the mistake of dating. But it was my Black dad that I saw in Lestat: beauty, fashion, wit; a fire that all the moths flutter around before he selects whom to cut dead with his blistering put-downs. Bad guys come in all colors. At least this one is enjoyable at the safe distance of a TV screen. Great summary (psst! Better than "Maven" constantly picking nits)!

I love the show so much and can’t wait for the next season!

I am a fan of the show and I didn't read the book (it is on my TBR). Thanks so much for this video as it has given me some insights and context into the show that I didn't have beforehand! Your video was very engaging and the 40 minutes flew by. Looking forward to a future video about Season 2, if there is one.

This is a cool adaptation and I’m glad you walked me through it so I can just jump in to S2! Now I can appreciate the changes and watch with an open mind!

🧐 I love this series and the changes from the book New Orleans cinematography is so sensual and vibrant. The history of Storyville is fascinating. 🥵 The sexual chemistry between Louis and Lestat is hotter than this summer.🔥🔥 I wanted more scenes of Louis family and his Vampire family dealing with each other 😮 😬 Claudia from episodes 4 to 7 emotional transformation had me awestruck🎉🎉 🏆 I have watched these 7 episodes so many times and still can't stop watching them 🤩🥰

I thought you were talking the books. Because Lestat right out tells the reader he's Queer or Bi. "I've always been a lover of men & women. He' definitely proved that... Straight up blood ho😂😂!!! Good thing vamos don't catch communicable diseases because he'd have problem....

Completely missed that the show existed, really looking forward to watching it and coming back to this video

I love both adaptations actually. And in both, Lestat is my favourite. And even though the fight/abuse scene is horrific, and wasn't like that in the book, it doesn't come totally out of thin air. But I don't see the context as "White man beating up black man." I see the context as "domestic violence." And does it really come so farfetched for Lestat to be unhinged after what he's been through? I mean, read the books. Spoiler ahead... spoiler He was abused as a child after he wanted to join the church and his father wouldn't let him and would have him beat up mercilessly to "kick the idea out of him" basically. Then he was beat up again after he ran away with gipsies and then, when he's finally finding the love of his life, he's abducted by a vampire who locks him up with dead bodies. He doesn't give him a choice in becoming a vampire and then is like "goodluck sucker, bye!" He's stumbling in the dark with way more power than he knows what to do with. The one person who he loves more than anything whithers away with sickness and when she's a vampire she goes away from him again. So when he has Louis and Claudia he makes sure he never tells them all the secrets of vampiricy because then they would no longer need him and leave him because the only way he knows love is being a dick...apparantly...

I really enjoyed Lestat in this season. He is my favorite character.

I have never read Anne Rice's books. I saw IWTV 1994 & it was a neat film. I happened to see this reimagining on AMC +, so I decided to watch. I love supernatural thrillers/ Horror genre, so this piqued my interest. So, I'm a Cis Gay POC Man watching this show with no real frame of reference other than the 1994 film I saw in the early 00s. I also grew up in an overly religious, and emotionally/physically abusive home. There is a lot in this show that has been well done. I do see some plot beats that got muddled but I do enjoy it. Especially with how queer it is. For me I love Louis as a character, and I'm really enjoying Lestat. I don't know much about Lestat's future in the Vampire Chronicles, I feel a lot of people are frustrated with Lestat being an abuser in this iteration. Here is where I am at. The fight scene from Claudia's perspective. DAMN THAT GAVE ME FLASH BACKS, as a 5-year-old watching my parents fights using pans, punching each other. Claudia being in the corner, made me feel helpless like I was as a child watching glass break, walls being punched, and my mother being thrown against objects. That was a really tough scene to watch. But it was accurate of how it feels. The apology scenes were on point. The "Thats not who I want to be anymore line". Textbook abuser language. I personally don't think they should shy away from the subject. I think Lestat has a lot of character development and growth and def needs a redemption arc if he is the hero of the Vampire Chronicles from what it sounds like he is. However, it needs to be done tastefully. I also don't think Louis or Lestat should have any form of reconciliation or relationship after the fact. (I don't know story beats after IWTV so not sure if they do.) In this adaptation I don't think they should, or it has a bad connotation to it. From the looks of it Armand or Rashid I guess really care for Louis. Lets just hope it isn't a situation where Louis in the future of the show is having to pick between Lestat and his new partner.

The meta commentary on how differently events are viewed during the second interview versus in the first interview actually makes perfect sense, in my opinion-because the Vampire Chronicles(books) fandom has ALWAYS hotly debated Book 1(Lestat's characterization through Louis' POV) versus Book 2(Lestat's characterization through Lestat's own POV), pointed to how Lestat is almost like two completely different characters from one book to the other, and argued pretty much endlessly over which version of Lestat is the true/definitive version of the character or not and such. I think it was also about paying homage to the previous movie adaptation's existence though, not just to the books; I think it was more about declaring that they weren't trying to remake or undo the movie's adaptation, they just wanted to pick up that legacy[ along with the legacy of the book series] and carry it onward one step further beyond the footsteps left behind by that film. The AMC tv series is also chock full of nods to various /monster/vampire movies and tv series from throughout history, and nods to many various other meta VC fandom culture elements(like the cover/art on a particular edition of one of the books that featured Lestat/Louis/Claudia dressed all in white); which I feel is all actually kinda fabulous, because Anne Rice based her book vampires on old movie vampires more than on anything else and was a huge fan of keeping up with various other vampire movies and tv series over the years and often commenting on them or her personal impressions of them, and I personally think it is a great nod also to the way that Ricean vampires became super influential and oft nodded to by other vampire fiction/media for decades after as well. I also like the way it kinda pays homage to the fact that Anne Rice always conceived her vampires as living in then-current days, as if they might have been true stories happening at the time when they were first published-it's very reminiscent of old gothic fiction that was often framed as if they could have been "true" stories really happening in those times. And old!Daniel in the tv series states that he recognizes his voice on the tapes but doesn't remember it happening at all, clearly implying that he has either forgotten or had the previous encountered erased from his memory until Louis contacts him and dredges it up again, so there's potentially good in-universe reason for why his life in the tv series has played out differently(So it's also possibly a bit of meta nod I think maybe to the fact that the characters were portrayed by completely different actors in the movie version than in the tv series, too; so it "was them", but it also "wasn't" them😊🤭🤭😁😂💖).

In reference to your point about Lestat, I feel that a character capable to rape (in one of the later books where the text is from Lestat’s pov) is one who can commit physical violence (as in this series). Both are unforgivable and equally heinous acts IMO so I wonder whether this footprint gave the writers reason to justify Lestat’s ability to commit DV. The vampiric power potential then makes the degree of violence extremely painful to watch. As some commenters have stated, I suspect that there will be some narrative correction of the events seen in this season in later seasons due to the POV aspect of this season and the ‘odyssey of recollection!

I am responding to your Lestat section at the time of my listening to it. I think the reason Lestat is so vile is because it's taken from Claudia's perspective and I believe Armand is manipulating Louis to believe that version of things. I think that Lestat's true nature will be revealed in a later season, sort of like it is in the books. Also, I think the audience is humanizing the relationship between 3 serial killers a bit much. As you pointed out Lestat says to Louis that he is trying to restrain himself and whatever action Louis takes that puts Lestat over the edge happens off-screen. The time compression plays a role here, in the book it's like 70 years before Claudia makes a move against Lestat. It's 3 full grown adults having a fight that gets out of hand in spite of their physical attributes. They never got that physical in the books and I can understand all the points of the fans who were shocked by the scenes in Episode 5, but as I theorized I think it's partially false.

I will say, that like the book series, I hope they're leading up to Lestat telling his side from his POV which I think will mitigate the complaints that his character has been tarnished. Of course, Louie's recount of their relationship will be unsavory because he's still angry with Lestat so that part hasnt phased me, yet.

Thank you cuz watching it the whole time I didn’t mind Lestat being a villain but it constantly felt like he was the least fleshed out and clearly being set up to be the fall guy villain. They refused to even meaningfully have him change or have growth and still be the villain. They choose the most comical version of a villain they could. I’ve never read the books but Lestat felt complete in his lore because we could tell there was a trove of story behind him but half baked in the on screen portrayal the writers chose to present

Having not seen any adaptation or read the book, i loved this video!

I liked the different take on the characters. As a vampire lover,I never see them as having human sexuality. They're just lustful beings imo. Like how it was portrayed in True Blood. No boxes,they just are. Using racial change (which I'm usually not a fan of and I'm melanated btw) made it more complex and the story not so simple, especially during the era. Thinking too deeply about his profession is crazy, that was a common thing in those days and very on brand. Even using the creole factor, which is more important than ppl may really understand. Making the girl older allowed more room that you can't do with a 5 yr old . I watched it for what it was, didn't get into all the nuance of boxes check. Looking forward to season 2. Nice review!

all people nowadays want are remakes and remakes of remakes, it tiring this show is a masterclass of adaptations. you have a story molded fresh for a new media with no interest in replicating the events of the original, but deep dive into other ideas and themes brought up by the books and expanded. that's what a copy of someones work, but a study of it.

I'm still traumatized after that vampire fight. I cried. Not prepared. I'm ok with it in the show tho, but the episode NEEDED a content warning

James somerton jumpscare omg

34:20 1969 Dark Shadows reference! I was raised on old VHS’ of the series and when I have the time will make a full length retrospective on how Barnabus fundamentally gave rise to reluctant vampires and influence Anne Rice.

I disagree totally about Lestat. I loved the changes to him and think his adaptation was the best part of the series. The entire thing makes much more sense this way. I think it works much better overall.

Jeeze!! I've been trying to figure out who Louis is, like what he was from forever!! Grey worm!! So handsome 😊

I have never seen a comment section so full of essays hahaha Great video! I never got to meet her, yet I miss Anne Rice so much…

I am so nervous for season two, I hope it doesn't disappoint me! The first season has set expectations pretty high.

"One of the Azalea's other players"--the Jelly Roll Morton erasure.

I really liked the new show adaptation, though some parts were intense.

Such an amazing video essay and while I don’t completely agree with all of them, there are amazing nuanced critiques in this

Re: lestat being evil, as a Vampire Story this gothic love story between a volatile immortal and his out of his depth boytoy SLAPS. I don't actually much care for Rice's authorial intent or fans' love for Lestat. Abusers are multi-layered characters and this is a brilliant depiction of it. We do unfortunately all fall in love with them in the wrong circumstances.

As someone who just so far watched the movie and the show, that fight scene did made very uncomfortable, sad and disturbed, but at same time I felt like it made sense for that Lestat. He's absolutely awful and has a deeply fear to be abandoned for those that he loves (for me it's only Louis that he loves tbh, as I feel like he only goes out of his away to avoid her flee is because he knew that without her he would lose Louis for good eventually), and reacts to that fear in the worst possible way. I feel like he also doesn't quite know what to do on a relationship- and to that I honestly can relate, even if I ain't toxic and manipulative as him. So anyway, I hate and love Lestat. I hate him because he's awful, and I love him for the same reason. I still feel like I'll never watch that fight scene without feeling horrible, but I was strangely happy that Louis didn't killed him on the show as well. Also I watched it with some friends, and we'd joke that we also ended up on a toxic relationship with Lestat at the end of the season- and I feel like I honestly can't disagree, unfortunately- and that video of James Somerton actually sumarizes how I felt, it's really really good. And before anyone calls me out, I don't excuse any of Lestat's actions. He seems to be traumatized himself, but his actions are just really horrible anyway. He's indeed a lot, a mess, a piece of work too far from finished. One that I'm kinda vibrating to see where they will lead to- can't wait to cry my ass again for this awfully narcissist and possessive vampire and the consequences of his actions on the lives of those that he loves. yipee

Love this adaptation 😊

I just watched the series and read the first two books. I actually think that the series is a great adaptation, even with its flaws. I really like the new background for Louis and the time it is set in. I would maybe even argue that it is better than the original (first) book, especially the portrayal of Lestat as a complex character, because in the IwtV book he had almost zero character. His motivations were shallow and underdeveloped. And while I understand that the episode 5 scenes may seem to extreme to some people, to me they more or less fit the context of the rest of the story, especially setting up the background for the end of episode 7. I believe (and hope) that the "unreliable narrator" (possibly under "love of my life" influence) will be explored more in the future season(s), leading to an overall more developed story, than the original. And I'm very interested in the character and role of Daniel in the continuation of the story. Overall, I think that it is only good that they are not trying to be too much faithful to the book, which frankly wasn't that great on its own.

Thanks for reminding me to read the books

Listen… I absolutely love this critique of this wonderful tv series! Excellent job. I’m a new subscriber because of this video.😂😊😂

I somewhat jumped around your video and I definitely think it's interesting and well-made. Your point about Lestat is one I highly agree and I would also like to add: - I think the argument about the DV scene being "necessary" in order to show how Lestat isn't 'above' certain things is faulty because the DV scene/abuse wasn't JUST that. It was horrifying, shocking and Lestat's actions (draining Louis of his blood before dropping him 1000 feet and running away) made it appear as though Lestat wasn't just physically assaulting Louis, he was also trying to *kill* him. How exactly do you come back from that if it's 100% true and you want to continue basing your show on both characters as main ones while also focusing on their relationship (that will likely continue to be in some way romantic)? And I know certain people will say that it's not like it hasn't been done before BUT, this also goes back to the aspect of how to then show Lestat's backstory and make him a sympathetic character if you introduce him in your show's first season with such a scene as this. And as you mentioned, the sudden shift in tone is so jarring in this scene as well as the dialogue itself. It almost feels like a weirdly timed scene with each character saying things they need to say in order to somehow get one argument into a full-blown domestic violence scene that within its context, also makes little sense because Lestat's first target was Claudia who threatens to take away Louis, but then he's suddenly trying to kill Louis?? - another argument that I disagree with is the necessity of this type of scene and specifically the explicit violence and brutality we see Louis go through in order to justify Claudia wanting Lestat dead and Louis assisting her in the murder. We didn't; the book never has this kind of scene because the point behind Claudia wanting Lestat dead is because he's deliberately keeping her and Louis in the dark about vampire secrets that he won't tell or even try to be honest about with her. Lestat and Louis do get into physical fights, but they're never to the level of which Lestat tries to murder Louis during one. The most accurate part in this entire mess from the show is that Lestat throws tantrums and specifically threatens Claudia with death if she continues to ask about vampire secrets, but the rest is so ham-fisted in the show that it frankly can't make it not questionable, particularly when it comes to the fact that the episode did not have any trigger warnings prior to being shown on AMC+ but episode 6 did? Anyway, my opinion is that Lestat's death is mainly done by Claudia for a specific reason that relates directly to her and not as much to Louis: Lestat is the vampire who turned *her* , he is responsible for the eternal life she will have to live as a 5 year old child, and he won't even give her the necessity of vampire knowledge that she believes she's entitled to. There's a reason why she slits his throat and plans his murder and not Louis, just as there's a reason why Lestat later accuses her of being his attempted murderer and not just Louis. I think the notion of needing the scene to be upped for television is frankly lacking because these characters are vampires. They do not need morally justifiable causes to murder another vampire when they live off of the blood of mortal people. Vampires being messy with other vampires (and in the case of Claudia, wholly justified in going against her maker) would be expected. The framing of the story as it is now would also potentially make Armand look even more unhinged and evil if he chose to damn Claudia in a trial for a murder that she didn't even commit till the end while Louis did, and for his own justifiable reasons. Add onto that the fact that if Louis knows Armand is in some way tied to Claudia's trial and possible murder, why is he there? Why is Armand cutting up Claudia's diaries in order to not have Daniel know about her own less-than-positive feelings about Louis? - which brings me to another issue I have with the show, namely Claudia's treatment. The rape plot in particular is very unnecessary and also frankly weak because as it is, it literally solely serves as a plot point in order to have Claudia go back and try to get Louis (while also becoming codependent with him to her own detriment). The placement of the rape scene that is then followed by Claudia telling Lestat "I wasn't well by lashing out but I'm better now" also makes it look as though her being raped "cured" her of her mental instability and lashing out??? And about the ending with Claudia and Louis sailing away, I feel like your video somewhat neglected to mention the context of the flashbacks we actually see from Louis once Daniel starts breaking down the inconsistency in his characterization of Claudia. We don't just see a different ending, we see an ending in which Louis goes against Claudia by *choking her* , the same manner in which Lestat physically assaulted her as a parent, while not allowing her to burn Lestat's body when she stressed to him that they need to burn it in order to be sure that he won't come back to get revenge on them, and specifically on her. The fact that Louis not only doesn't in panic set Lestat on fire like in the book, in order for him and Claudia to flee, but also outright forbids Claudia (while physically assaulting her) from assuring her own safety from Lestat, is very jarring. And it's particularly bothersome to me that Louis would want to hide this part and even further try to make sure there's no clear 'evidence' of it (which is what I think the missing pages in her last diary that Daniel points out are missing were about). It makes me wonder if it isn't just Lestat failing her as a parent but also Louis, and doing so way before they even meet Armand, which again, changes the context of the books significantly when it comes to Louis and Claudia. Because Claudia at least thought she could rely on Louis before they meet Armand. Now she knows she never could even prior to that. - Agreed on Tom Cruise as Lestat point. I love Sam Reid as Lestat but I think that given how the movie was solely an adaptation of the first book, he did well in capturing the very limited view we have of Lestat from the book that we also know is Louis being an unreliable narrator.

I know that this is out of topic, but the whole time I was watching the show, I kept thinking how the interviewer look like the food critic from ratatouille.

I really loved the show. I'm weirdly okay with all the changes, and I enjoyed how much effort they put into costumes, and how they're taking their time and mashing books up together. I'm just sorry Anne isn't around to tell us what she thinks. Also, going to New Orleans and seeing the house they filmed in was a lot of fun too!

On the Lastate stuff. Isnt it made clear that Louie is a unreliable narrator. Like in the book. When they get into the Lastate book stuff they will retcon like Rice did

11:31 Honestly, I don’t feel the references to the old interview is an attempt at retconning. As someone unfamiliar with the material, it only appeared to be a nod to theme of memory and also creating conflict between Louie and the interviewer-whether or not he is a reliable narrator. Creates a mission for the interviewer to push him on the truth

I like how you quoted the nostalgia chick

This is great video! I think you missed a few things about the product of the show and movies. The movie screenplay was initially written by Anne Rice, but they completely cut her out during the filming and she had no clue what was changed or kept. As for the show, she was an executive producer along with her son who wrote the first episode. I love this video please make more!

When I was younger I remember being Claudia nursing the parent back2health the sorry gifts every member and how bad I wanted him dead so those episodes for me where pretty accurate

Interview did not need adaptation from the time period both in the now and the past. They needed to stay faithful to the first book to put Listat in the right era.

I would argue that it isn't just that Louis suddenly starts to feel guilty that Lestat kills that one random opera singer....it's the fact that Louis is slowly realizing that Lestat isn't just killing because they're vampires who need blood to survive, Louis is slowly realizing that Lestat doesn't just kill this guy but is slowly and agonizingly TORTURING this guy over a very lengthy extended amount of time *_and_* Lestat is literally delighting in doing it. It isn't the fact that Lestat kills a humanbeing that becomes too much for Louis to tolerate, it's the fact that Lestat is ENJOYING causing unnecessary suffering and terror and pain while killing people which begins to turn Louis' stomach.

Very much enjoyed this show. As an adaptation…it’s flawed. More inspired by the book rather than based on it if that makes sense. I personally prefer the film but this show offers some great ideas and I believe keeps the spirit of the book for the most part. Excited for season 2!