#Interview with the vampire analysis

[salethe2]

I’ve seen a lot of takes on this scene, and honestly they’re all so interesting, so I decided to give my perspective.

Okay, starting with Armand’s costume, which Carol Cutshall absolutely nailed. Here’s what she said about Armand’s costume design:

—“One of the things about Armand is he is so ancient and so powerful that he always presents himself as very open. Whereas some of the other characters are very covered up, he’s always very open because he really doesn’t see anyone as a threat to himself. He didn’t have any predators or any reason to be on guard, or be armoured.”

Personally, I find this design choice fascinating because, despite being a predator at the top of the food chain, vampires like Armand, especially as a coven leader, would normally need to remain vigilant. Yet, he’s completely at ease, even surrounded by other vampires.

I mean, look at him here. Sure, it’s not the deep, open V-neck shirts he wears in the interview scenes, but his outfit is still loose and open. And he’s literally surrounded by a group of vampires he knows are plotting against him. He even has his back to said vampires and yet, he’s not the least bit nervous in either situation!

Even with Daniel, he’s not nervous or afraid because he doesn’t initially see him as a threat.

So, if Armand isn’t scared of his own coven—a bunch of vampires ready to kill him at the first opportunity—or Daniel, who could potentially expose all his manipulations, then why on earth does he go into full armor mode to meet a seemingly inconsequential human he’s never encountered before? He’s literally in a turtleneck, shielding his most vulnerable area for crying at loud!

A for body language—honestly, Assad Zaman deserved an Emmy for this scene. We see Armand being aloof, a little suave and condescending, employing the whole, “I’m a four-century-old vampire; you’re just a lowly human” tactic. It’s like he’s sizing her up, wanting to understand who she is while simultaneously aiming to provoke her, curious to see how she will react.

As for his questions, he frames them in the way you might expect a coven leader to interrogate a human he’s about to turn. Questions like, “How will you survive? Are you okay with killing people and being a monster?” It almost seems like he’s trying to make her reconsider her decision to turn, but it’s all a facade.

Because the question he really wants to ask is the last one, and when he finally approaches it, his entire demeanor shifts.

He sheds the suave demeanor and shifts to a more serious tone, embodying what Louis describes as his "post-apocalyptic look." He towers over Madeleine, gazing down at her in an attempt to intimidate. At this point, Madeleine's expression turns genuinely nervous, perhaps even frightened—and understandably so. Yet, she holds her ground. It's then that Armand poses the crucial question he had come specifically to ask.

“And what will you do in a few decades when she throws herself into the fire? Because she will.”

Now, why does this question seem familiar? It’s because Armand has previously made a similar statement to Louis. He had forewarned Louis that Claudia’s mind was bound to deteriorate over time. Now, Louis tearfully countered that Armand couldn’t be sure of this, yet part of him probably recognized the truth in Armand’s words, which likely contributed to his emotional plea for Armand to look after her.

Armand realized then that Louis, despite his deep love for Claudia, lacked the resolve to keep her grounded, effectively sealing her fate, which seemed all but inevitable by that point. He even assigns Claudia the role of Lulu as a way to infantilize her and further break her spirit—almost as a test to gauge Louis’ reaction. Unfortunately, Louis does nothing about it, while Madeleine clearly recognizes it for the manipulation it is.

And what does she do next? Madeleine quickly gets Claudia out of that outfit and into one more fitting for her. By doing this, she threatens Armand’s plans without even realizing it.

It’s also interesting to note that the only time Armand is ever truly angry with Claudia is when he sees her with Madeleine. This reaction underscores the threat he perceives in their bond, disrupting his control of the situation, and here is why.

When Armand posed the question to Madeleine about what she would do when Claudia throws herself into the fire, her response was:

“Or maybe she won’t. You don’t know. Maybe I’m what she needs to survive.”

And the way she meets his gaze as she says this marks a shift in their conversation. Throughout their entire conversation, Madeleine often looks away and breaks eye contact, but not in this moment. Here, she meets his gaze head-on. Even though she is clearly nervous, and likely a bit scared, she holds his gaze because she is sure of her words. This is a powerful moment where Madeleine not only asserts her belief but also turns the tables—now, it’s Armand’s turn to feel uneasy.

Of course, you don’t see it in his face, but it’s evident in his body language. The way he becomes closed off, his hand fidgeting, and his gaze fixed ahead as if deep in thought. He doesn’t even refute her.

Even with Lestat, when he warns him about Nicky, Armand doesn’t stay silent; he confidently affirms his insights, and Lestat—of all people—clearly believes him. But with Madeleine, it’s a different story. He goes silent, not uttering a word in response. He doesn’t attempt to persuade her because he recognizes that her mind is made up, her resolve unshakable. But perhaps the words that really hit home for him were “You don’t know.” This was probably the words that sealed Madeleine’s fate because the last thing you want to say to a master manipulator and control freak like Armand is that they don’t know something. Because now, all of a sudden Claudia’s death isn’t a certainty anymore and he can’t just sit back and wait for her to lose her sanity. He must take matters into his own hands now.

Anyway, one might think that Madeleine and Claudia leaving, thereby leaving Louis all to Armand, would satisfy him. After all, one of the first things he asks Claudia and Madeleine is if they’re considering returning to Paris, and you might assume Madeleine’s answer pleased him. However, her answer doesn’t satisfy him, not after what Madeleine says soon after.

Madeleine’s words confirm that Claudia indeed loves Louis, and because Madeleine loves Claudia, she persuades her to return to Paris despite her obvious and valid disdain for the city. This revelation proves to Armand, even if they leave Louis, Madeleine and Claudia will always remain a significant part of Louis’s life. For Armand, this is intolerable. To him, Claudia is a dangerous manipulator and a competitor of Louis’s attention.

So even if they all lived happy, separate lives, Armand’s nature is such that he cannot live with the doubt and fear that Claudia might draw Louis away from him. Having been abandoned too many times in his life, deeply wounded by those closest to him, and left behind for others, he cannot risk experiencing that pain again.

Thus, in that moment when he speaks to Madeleine in the apartment, he decides that both she and Claudia need to be eliminated. I believe this was the real reason Armand was there under the pretense of turning her. He needed to evaluate how much of a threat Madeleine posed to his plans, and upon realizing she was basically a live grenade, he knew he needed to act swiftly to get rid of her. Because as long as Madeleine is present, so will Claudia, and as long as Claudia exists, Louis will never truly belong to Armand.

[chaotic-multi-fandom]

WHERE DOES IT START? ARUN, AMADEO, ARMAND

- My personal reflections on Armand's names in Interview with the Vampire (show version)

“Who am I Louis?” Armand asks while staring at a painting of a boy that only he would ever be able to recognize as himself. He stares at what is supposed to be his essence captured forever on a canvas, and yet the kneeling boy is a stranger to him. When he asks Louis this, he is earnest. Armand does not know who he is, and this lack of identity crushes and torments him. Armand seems to constantly define himself by his attachment to other people or things, such as a “servant”, as “the job (he) did not want” or as someone’s “companion” because he has never known anything else, he is never just “Armand;” he does not know who that is.

This is further reflected in his names, and the fact that despite having several none belong to him. First there’s Arun. This is supposedly the name he was born with, but even he is not sure of this due to his memory being clouded as a consequence all the horrors he suffered as a child. This name is not his, it is a name so linked to the abuse he endured that it has become the name of said abuse rather than the name of a person. His use of third person when talking about himself as “Arun” signals both a coping mechanism to distance himself from those experiences as well as the disconnect he feels from the identity attached to the name.

Then, there’s Amadeo. A name given to him by Marius, not only linking him directly with his maker and master but with God and worship, the name meaning “lover of god”. This name is also not his, but rather a projection of what Marius saw or expected in Armand. This is what we see in the painting, an ideal: a submissive, worshipful, whitewashed Armand degraded to kneel at the same level as the dog behind him, “basking in (his) worshipful mercy.” Regardless of how Armand did embody this role of worship and servitude during his time with Marius, that painting is not him, it is the fantasized construct that is Amadeo, who doesn’t really exist. When you think about it, Amadeo being a projection of those around him is not entirely different to “dreamstat” being a projection of Louis. This is of course largely my own interpretation and not fact, but I think anyone can agree that who is being portrayed in that painting is Armand only in name. It is simply another example of his body being used for a purpose, an artistic one in this case, his true essence and even features entirely forgotten and replaced by Amadeo’s. So, that name and the identity attached to it wasn’t entirely Armand’s either. Much like “Arun” being tied to his parents abandon and the brothel, Amadeo is trapped in the painting: just another property to be “sold” or “donated;” what Armand has always been treated as.

Finally, there is the name we call him by now: Armand. A name given to him by the Roman coven before sending him to the Paris coven, a collective that he is now supposed to lead and put before himself as an individual. It is a French name, a place he had no connection to before-hand and that only further distances him from who he might have once been, forcing him to adapt and assimilate into the new role he has been chained to. The name is a role in itself, as it means “soldier.” Furthermore, he is not a simple leader to this coven, he is the somewhat paternal and religious figure through which the coven; his “children,” serve Satan and through him, God. He is part of a “murky trinity” as Lestat calls it, a twisted parody of the holy trinity. So, “Armand” is once again much more than a name; it is another projection the lost and abandoned coven latches onto. Of course, they mostly refer to him as “maitre,” the implications of which I’ve already discussed in a different post. In this case, the dual titles “Armand” and “Maitre” are parallel to “Amadeo,” they both link Armand to the concepts of owner and God, except the roles change from being the owned worshiper to the worshiped owner. It remains someone else’s image, someone else’s name, one that prevents Armand from exploring who he is without it.

Armand does not have a name; how can he know who he is?

Even now he seeks the answer in Louis where he will not find it. There are, however, moments in which this seemed to be challenged. For example, shortly after meeting, Armand asks Louis to address him as such instead of “maitre” as his coven does. It is a moment in which he takes agency over what he wants to be called, a privilege he has never had before. Later, Louis calls him Arun as a way to indicate that he can see the person that lies behind the roles he plays, and that he can be himself around Louis. Yet these moments are still tainted. The name Armand does not reflect who he is, and in the conversation with Louis, Armand falls into his old patterns by addressing Louis as “maitre.” Plus, Louis too will go on to misuse this, but that’s a whole other topic. These instances, though revealing a more loving and honest side to Louis’ and Armand’s relationship in which they allow themselves to be open, they can not give Armand a sense of self. No one but himself can, and yet he doesn’t know how that is. It is a tragic never-ending paradox as immortal as he.

[loumandism]

“Armand is very, very skilled at preserving his existence. So that doesn’t mean that he’s always happy…but I think he will do anything to survive…He pretends to give this facade of not being the child, but he is. He is the child.” - Assad Zaman, Mysza Interview

“And I think that’s more powerful than saying one vampires is bad and one vampire is good, or Armand was controlling the whole thing. If Armand is the big arc villain of the show, it takes away the agency. Louis’s gotta have agency. Lestat’s gotta have agency. And Armand. And they’ve gotta have control and be responsible for their own actions.” - Sam Reid, Autumn Brown Interview Outtakes

“A number of my writers have a [very rich] point of view about Armand that may not be totally satisfying by the end of this season, but actually allows for so much more stuff to come up after this…Just wait. Everyone will get their turn. You will be able to understand from their point of view why they do what they do. We don’t have a lot of room for mustachey-twirly villains on our show.” - Rolin Jones, Rotten Tomatoes

“We landed on the idea that [Armand] had two cowardly moments in his life. And that any lies after that were all to cover up those two, but that there were actually really, really sincere efforts to try and make up for it, to be better than that, and that he had.” - Rolin Jones, The Wrap

“He directed it, but it wasn’t his choice to do it. The fucking nugget of complexity is that he’s not a mustache-twirling evil guy all along. He has just thrown himself, well, been thrown into a situation and has done despicable things to survive, granted despicable things and a despicable lie to hold for so many years.” Assad Zaman, TV Insider

“We go back to something we’ve hit over and over again: is the sum of your character your worst moments? And, yeah, sure, someone could go ahead and say ‘fuck you, Armand, for the rest of your life because of that’…[But] we have seven, eight years hopefully, on this show, if we’re lucky, for contrition and forgiveness everywhere.” - Rolin Jones, The Wrap

[willtransform]

2x02/2x07

(inspo)

[telemachea]

the implications of the show possibly making armand muslim are devastating. marius renames arun 'amadeo' meaning 'lover or beloved of god' which was ALREADY gross in the books since it places him as this godlike figure armand had to worship. and then later on, with the cult in rome and santino, he was forced into worshipping satan which caused a whole crisis for him even when book armand was christian. but if show armand is muslim everything gets a whole lot worse. in islam the biggest most unforgivable sin (if you don't repent) is shirk, or idol worship. by fashioning himself as armand's god, marius not only removed armand's cultural identity from him, he has tainted his faith which is arguably one of the only things armand could've held onto. marius essentially damns armand in one of the most irreversible ways possible by grooming him the way he did with religion as a weapon. and it gets even worse with the cult since armand is not only forced to commit shirk but to reject allah, one of the last ties he has to his cultural identity, completely. armand therefore becomes a metaphor and an example of what colonialism inflicts upon the colonised

[sleepdeprivedsurgeon]

i promise you that Armand was thinking about things besides Daniel during the interview. like i guarantee that some of those lines and microexpressions were about something besides the old man. he has 500 years of interiority and he's selling the art in his house and his marriage is falling apart before his eyes and he's got temple run on that ipad. i promiseeeeeeeee it was not all about Daniel it was like maybe 20% about Daniel.

[serpentarius]

I wonder how many of Armand's victims have actively fought back during his "easeful death" speech the way Daniel did.

Daniel's interruptions may be small — not loud or flailing or aggressive — but they're impactful. And while Armand remains composed throughout and continues his practiced monologue without wavering, I'd say for the first three quarters of it he's talking at Daniel. He talks over him, but not really to him. Not until the very end.

Daniel rebuts with:

"I don't want to rest."

"I like my life."

"I have a thing happening in the city."

"I'm a bright young reporter with a point of view."

He's trying so hard to cling onto life. He doesn't want death, even if it is an easeful one. Armand cuts that last interjection off with a "ssh-ssh-ssh," which makes me think this might be a point where Armand's patience is tested. Because things aren't going the way they perhaps normally go when he gives this speech! Daniel isn't begging for death! He's resisting!

And so then, Armand says "rest" a lot near the end of the speech, which we know by this point is an indicator of him controlling bodies. He says, "It's okay, it's okay, it's okay. It'll feel like a bath. Rest. Like honey on your tongue," etc, and maybe this is Armand struggling and fighting harder to get Daniel into the state of obeisance that he wants in his victims. The speech hasn't been working as intended, so he has to rely more on his methods of control and hypnosis.

And finally, after all this, you can see the moment when Daniel finally falls into the trance. It's after a lot of effort on Armand's part, and after he's resorted to his cheaper tricks.

So, if we do get a past Devil's Minion arc, I can see Armand fixating on the fact that Daniel was able to resist the pull and performance of Gentleman Death for an impressive amount of time. That despite all the words Armand said to him, he still longed for life.

Maybe this is what makes him fascinating.

[a-realproblem]

iwtv + race, briefly dissected by intellectuals

[soliloqueeer]

“I was being hunted.”

With each rewatch, I’m always struck by the look Lestat gives Louis in 1x01. As Louis tells Daniel, "I was being hunted," the camera pans to Lestat, who is staring at Louis with an expression that can only be described as love and longing.

The first time I watched, I took Louis’ story at face value, believing him as I did with most of his claims. Thus, I perceived this glance far differently than I do now. Now that we know Louis is an unreliable narrator, I see this framing as attempt for Louis way to avoid the guilt and shame he feels over being seduced by Lestat. By casting Lestat as a predator, Louis distances himself from the guilt of choosing him again and again.

While there are countless reasons why Louis might have portrayed Lestat this way, it’s worth revisiting the narrative with the knowledge we have now: that Lestat fell desperately in love with Louis and courted him for months. The look we see here is not that of a manipulator with a grand, conniving plan, but of someone patiently and desperately waiting for Louis to meet him where he is, and to love him deeply as he loves him - a dynamic that will the continue throughout the entire narrative.

[angrybubbles]

This has been said by many many people here before but-

We all know Daniel is not the Good Heroic Character, right?

A lot of those traits that could lead to us assigning him that are are because he's the closest to an audience insert and says things we agree with (confirmation bias), rather than because he's a good guy.

He's the Byronic Hero but that doesn't necessarily mean he's "good." It's a Gothic Fiction character role, which means morals are going to sit at a solid grey.

Him pointing out the racism of Louis and Lestat's relationship isn't done to help Louis. He says it belligerently. The tone is off. He's saying it for the audience as much as just... pointing it out in the worst way possible. He's being a dick, even if he's right.

That's the thesis of his character, really. The truth isn't good, it isn't nice, and it can be spat at you like an insult just as easily as a lie can soothe the pain (thematic mirroring with Armand and Daniel here. Delicious).

And there's also the journalism aspect. Journalism isn't a force for good, and it regularly is used for evil. Daniel knows this, and doesn't really give a shit. Once he puts the narrative out there, it's in the readers hands. There's no "good" he's doing here, past sitting on a couch and asking questions to help clarify why Louis wants to tell him all this.The ethics of journalism is a well-worn topic, and Daniel has the career to show he doesn't really care to fit the mold or be "correct" about it.

Daniel is a tool, he's a wedge used to get to the heart of the matter. When he criticizes Louis' idealism, he's not doing it to help Louis find the truth as a friend (not saying they're not friends, but it's not his motivator). He understands this is Louis' narrative, but he has his parallel narrative as well, the "truth" of the matter isn't about truth so much as it's about comparing realities and supporting it with evidence. Daniel being worldly, experienced, and a journalist isn't him saving Louis. He doesn't even want to do that until Armand pisses him off personally, and even then it's not in the "saving" sense as much as the "proving" sense.

As a Leftist reporter who speaks about things people are likely to hide, he's doing it to expose bullshit. To expose lives that no one looks to think about (the Vietnam Vet with his disabled Vietnamese boyfriend, and the single mom working at the titty bar. Even as a kid, he listened to those no one else would think to listen to.) The help is there, but it's a side-effect, not a goal. He's not a white-knight, he's a white guy with a need to stick it to the man (being the "traditional" narrative).

So keep him an asshole. The truth hurts, especially when you dig at it as voraciously as Daniel does.

Also please don't misconstrue this as me saying he's the most truthful character. Again, Gothic character, he's just a force that includes pushing and idealizing truth.

[the-quiet-youve-been-longing-for]

I love Danlou, but there is something rattling my brain for a while, and that is the delicious gothic concept of meaning well, but those consequences backfiring in the future and ruining someone in some aspects.

We know Louis gave Daniel that lifeline, that "You're a bright young reporter with a point of view", something Daniel quotes in his book, his masterclass and to Real Rashid like a mantra, to avoid him spiraling again and self destroying. We know Daniel didn't stop being an addict after that night, that he got "his shit together" later on, when he decided to get married.

And the fault of "you're a bright young reporter, there are stories that need to be told" is that Louis knew Daniel since 10 hours that night. What if journalism was a passing fancy for Daniel, would Louis even know that? He didn't care to go deep into his mind about it, I feel. He mostly talked about himself, and then he decided to go the rooftop. Maybe Daniel could have decided to stop journalism and take up volleyballing, I don't know. Or maybe without those words, he could have crashed and burned.

Daniel most likely put in jeopardy some aspects of his life, his wives, his children, for that lifeline that was fed to him by a vampire who wanted to save him in some way. Louis didn't know exactly what to do apart from just pulling the emergency brakes.

What if he heard "There are stories that need to be told" when too overwhelmed by his personal life and deadlines and things to do and the pangs of his addiction, convincing him to put his work as the priority?

What breaks my heart when Daniel starts crying at the "I was never so lost I couldn't hold down a job" is that its in part relief, sure, because he got to his age and he had accomplishments and surely those words play a part.

But there is also a part of... Regret? Of thinking how it would have gone differently if this hadn't happened, just like Louis's what ifs in the stone rock coffin? Would he still be with his wife, his children? Would he have died much sooner, would he have done something different?

Personally I think it's criminal if this aspect isn't explored more in the future, because with a single emotion and a single line Eric Bogosian showed all of this, in my opinion.

[howlerbat]

it’s crazy how Armand is the only vampire in the show who barely acts like one. Like sure he flexes his powers a couple times and floats around but outside of 2x5 he acts so deliberately docile… we never even see him kill anyone! No blood dripping down his chin after feeding?? Do you realize there’s no shot in the entire series of the vampire Armand being covered in blood? I need it to happen in s3 so BAD

[uthseikoashx-goingmyway]

AMC Interview with the vampire (2022) — 1x01 : "In Throes of Increasing Wonder..." / AMC Interview with the vampire (2024) — 2x02 : "Do you know what it means to be loved by death"

like father like daughter

[yesimwriting]

How do you think Lestat and bestie!reader would get along exactly? Like, how Lestat views her and their dynamic 😪

I'm so glad you asked this omg. I have a few Lestat drabbles/asks in the drafts that explore their dynamic, but they're not ready yet, so here's some character analysis.

- - - -

Lestat initially hates bestie reader with the intensity that Armand wants to hate her with.

In Lestat's defense, let's look at the Louis and bestie reader situation from his perspective. He openly gives Louis his space for 77 years, and then when he reunites with Louis, the person he's most infatuated with isn't the man Louis has built a life with for nearly 8 decades, it's a random mortal girl. And then Lestat has to read a book all about Louis in which Louis discusses that girl and him for more or less the same amount of pages (Daniel was fs messy about the chapter distributions).

Also, Lestat has to read about Louis, who has been grappling with the implications of the dark gift since the very beginning, discuss how excited this random mortal girl made him about his existence.

I believe that the murder attempt straightened Lestat out in some ways. The fact that Louis and Armand came to him to basically rub their relationship in his face and Lestat was just like 'cool' shows a level of restraint that pre-lobotomy Lestat would have never been capable of. So, I don't think he's as jealous or as villainous to bestie reader as he would have been in the early 1900's. So, instead of trying to kill her, he's just very snarky about things.

Now, in bestie's head, Lestat is a villain. Louis couldn't tell reader much about Armand's actions for her own safety, so he just told her about every bad thing Lestat has ever done. Also, the fact that Armand is no longer going to be around has put bestie in an unreceptive mood (for obvious reasons), so she really doesn't want to understand Lestat. She doesn't want to like him.

She's also feeling a little insecure, because the second Louis leaves Armand starts telling her about all of the people Louis has let himself lose for Lestat. (Armand definitely brings up all the ways in which Louis let Claudia down in order to stay with Lestat.) So, for the first time ever, bestie doesn't feel like a priority in Louis's life.

When they do finally meet, there's something about bestie reader's anger and general disposition that reminds Lestat of Louis. He only sees it for a second, but it's enough for him to almost get the point of her.

However, when bestie immediately clocks him and hits him with a completely snarky and accurate read, Lestat is like 'no, I won't be doing this <3'. When Louis lets Lestat know that he will, in fact, be doing 'this' because she's not going anywhere, he dislikes her even more.

To her face, Lestat swears he doesn't need her approval, but also...his life would be so much easier if he had it. So, when Louis asks him to try to get along with her, Lestat is going full Lestat charm offensive. Not even in a romantic or sexual way, he's just being the fun, likable version of himself as a way of 'tricking' bestie reader into liking him.

And, because it's hard to not like Lestat when he's in likable mode, he does start to crack the ice a little. I can see them discussing certain theatre productions and pop culture. They'd also bond over teasing Louis about not wanting to go out to clubs/parties with them...but most of the time, they end their discussions with a flat reminder that they're not friends. (don't tell armand about this, he'll wait for the UV to hit 11 and then go outside)

It's important to note that bestie reader mainly starts giving Lestat a genuine chance because of how badly Louis wants her to. I believe that since early on in their friendship, Louis has secretly been dreaming of Lestat and bestie reader meeting.

I also think that in some ways Lestat and bestie reader are similar, which complicates them further. Lestat looks at her and sees the positive impacts he might have been able to have on Louis if he had been a little different. Also, I think something about her presence would remind Lestat of Claudia, which uneases him further. Bestie reader sees the true extent of what Louis is willing to forgive when he loves someone, and I think that makes her more wary of how she treats Louis.

In short, they're basically 'Girl, so confusing (ft. Lorde)'. Let's hope they work it out on the remix.

[gregrulzok]

But as much as I make fun of Daniel... God, I get it.

I Get It.

Ohhh do I Get It.

Because at the start he's a 32 year old man, and he's got a barely paying job that (to be fair) he's very passionate about, and he has a budding alcohol problem, and he has presumably got little contact with family and few friends. He's drifting, unsure, untethered.

And any little semblance of normalcy is suddenly, violently, ripped from him. He learns that vampires, eternal, powerful creatures actually exist all around him. He's forced to go on a cross-country rat race to escape a vampire stalker that's literally playing chase with him for his own amusement, and in the process, he presumably loses contact with everyone. He's ready to die by the end of it, tormented and scared and having felt like prey for YEARS, but instead he's made to drink vampire blood and OH, for the first time in a long time he feels POWERFUL. And now he's hopping country-to-country again, going out only at night, only at the discretion of his stalker - his stalker, his lover, the only one that can make him feel that powerful again and yet still, he's infinitely more powerful than Daniel anyway - and for years and years he doesn't see the sun, sleeps away the day to get ready for the next night of God-Knows-What.

And Armand leaves him sometimes ! Disappears for weeks or months. He has no control over him, no sway, he doesn't understand him, can't comprehend his world, won't have it explained to him.

He knows only ecstasy or agony.

And now he's 30-something or 40-something, and he's addicted to vampire blood, to the torment of others. He's been travelling for years, he doesn't go out during the day, he's got no one other than Armand. And he's been complicit, so many times, in death - he knows his lover kills every night, he knows their pain - how is he even supposed to look at other people now? And he's been cuddling and kissing and intimate with the corpse of a 17-year-old boy, and he knows that's technically still a living being, but FUCK if that won't mess with your perception of yourself. He knows that not normal, he's aware that if anyone knew he'd be locked up by now, but he can't stop now because where will he go? He can't talk to humans normally anymore, not ever.

And Armand is all he has, Armand is all he can cling to - because he makes him feel powerful, yes, but also because he loves him. He loves him so much, it's his only anchor in the world, his only salvation.

And Armand is composed where Daniel is disheveled. Beautiful where Daniel is scruffy. Powerful where Daniel is weak, wise where Daniel is ignorant, energetic where Daniel is lethargic.

Eternal, where Daniel is painfully, painfully mortal.

Armand is all he has, and he doesn't know why Armand wants him, and he knows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that he's going to die soon and Armand will forget about him.

Eventually, sure. After years, maybe even decades, maybe even centuries of grief, who knows?

But eventually, Daniel will be nothing but a distant, half-remembered, fond glimpse of Armand's past.

Because if things don't change, if they continue to be where they are, then compared to Armand, he really is nothing.

...

I FUCKING GET IT.

[the-vampire-lazarus]

“His eyes… sliding down me.”

This particular moment in this episode has always stuck out to me. This may be a stupid take but this is how I’ve always interpreted Lestat’s distress while saying this.

Option 1: he’s remembering how it felt to be desired by Louis and regretting his past actions

OR

Option 2 (my personal interpretation): this is Lestat being forced by the coven to paint Louis as a villain, a predator. Lestat is probably thinking about his own SA at the hands of Magnus as he’s describing how Louis supposedly behaved toward him in NOLA. Lestat was stalked and victimized by Magnus soon after he moved to Paris. This is essentially what he accuses Louis of doing to him in America. To me, Lestat’s horrified face in this scene doesn’t just come from betraying Louis and Claudia (which we know he canonically was forced to do by Armand), but also from the memory and confession of what Magnus did to him.