[awkward Silence]

Kinda insane that in the show that is rooted firmly in its use of the unreliable narrator trope, it seems all too common that:

1. People believe Armand had to have turned Daniel out of spite just because Louis said so.

2. Armand was lying about Lestat being attracted to him, a character who is known for being alluring and attractive.

I wonder what the common denominator between those two things are? So anything anyone says about Armand is true, but everything Armand says is automatically a lie? Okay, sure.

I guess it bothers me because Assad is so beautiful and he nails how charming and seductive Armand is meant to be. Why are people so determined to deny that characters in-universe might find him attractive? No one had an issue believing it in the books. He also captured the fragility and very real vulnerability Armand exhibits in fleeting moments. He’s such a gorgeous character and it sucks to see people overlook Assad’s work.

If you came away from season 2 thinking Armand is a “moustache-twirling villain” as I believe Assad(?) put it, whose every action is rooted in callousness and pure evil, you are watching the wrong show. There are much worse characters than him and even they are layered and complex.

Yes, Armand is evil. Yes, he did terrible things. Yes, he lies often. But he is not the Big Bad a lot of people pretend he is and not every word out of his mouth is a lie. There is so much more to him and why he acts the way he does. The actors have said so, the show-runner said so, the writers said so, the books said so, the show itself said so. Read between the lines please. Or just read the actual lines. It’s not even subtext.

He’s morally grey like everyone else and he’s going to have a lot more screen time so if you insist on hating him, I’d prepare yourself for that. He and Lestat have a very real history. It’s just a little weird how people purposely mischaracterise him (and all the other characters in the process). He’d be so boring if he was the one-note villain many seem to believe he is.

Interview with the Vampire (2022) | Season 2, Episode 7 Assad Zaman as The Vampire Armand

'Ooooohh, he hunegry...' by Paprikagen_

Posted with Permission

armand’s costumes are such an interesting data point re: his nebulous sense of identity.

when analyzing any costume, there are always many factors to consider: the setting, the character’s personal taste and economic constraints, storytelling concerns like tone and genre, etc. with armand, we also need to remember that he’s 500 years old and violently disconnected from his human origins. everything he wears has an element of disguise, selected to blend into a new environment.

armand was enslaved as a child in 16th century delhi, and barely remembers his mortal life. unlike louis - who can return to new orleans after 80 years and reconnect with his past - armand has no home to return to. his whole backstory, even his name, is rife with traumatic subtext, leaving him with an obsessive need for structure and control. this adds an extra layer of meaning to costuming choices that initially seem like straightforward menswear. 

armand’s 1940s wardrobe is very put-together - primarily three-piece suits and coats that make him look wealthier and more formal than louis, who is purposefully dressing down. most of these outfits are tailored to bulk up armand's frame, leaning into the "maitre" persona. and like his business-casual dubai wardrobe, he always leaves his collar open. when i interviewed costume designer carol cutshall, she described this as a symbolic power move, signalling that he's an apex predator who doesn't need to protect his throat.

my personal interpretation is that while armand clearly likes to look good, he has a complicated relationship with attractiveness. he doesn't always want to draw attention. his color palette is shadowy (black, grey, brown, olive green), and he’s much less flashy than the other Théâtre vamps. however when he’s feeling confident and flirty, he becomes more of a power-dresser - for instance his hunting outfit with the big coat and sunglasses, or his habit of wearing kohl.

interestingly, most of armand's 1940s costumes set him apart from the coven. the Théâtre vampires dress like cabaret performers, embracing a lot of period-specific styles. by contrast armand is more timeless and neutral. in fact, due to the relatively minor changes in men's suits over the past 100 years, there's a lot of overlap between his wardrobe in the 1940s, '70s and 2020s:

the rest of the Théâtre squad share an unofficial uniform of boldly clashing monochrome patterns with pops of bright color. meanwhile armand has a very plain wardrobe, emphasizing the image of him as a businesslike authority figure surrounded by zany artistes. he only wears subtle stripes on a few occasions in the '40s, reflecting the recurring prison motif we see in lestat's trial suit and (most famously) the dubai penthouse bedroom:

if we ask the question, "what does this person like to wear?" there are easy answers for lestat, louis and claudia. we understand their tastes, and the motives behind them. but armand is more enigmatic. we can recognize through-lines in his wardrobe, but his "taste" is dominated by whatever role he's currently decided to embody, whether that's a parisian theater director or a real estate mogul in dubai.

the times when he appears to have the most fun with clothing are when he steals a pair of sunglasses from his human dinner (!) and when he's pretending to be rashid. in other words, when he's explicitly performing for an audience. "real armand" is still a mystery.

(i may write more about armand's dubai wardrobe later, but for now, you can find all of my iwtv costumes posts on this tag!)

*dies of cuteness*

Reblog!!

My two bbgs 😔🫶

Laito being the Mad Hatter is just *chef's kiss*

I think the reason the loumand relationship is so addictively fascinating to me is because it has so many facets and layers and so completely defies any single explanation or categorization, and unlike with s1 loustat the writers really don't make everything clear or hold your hand through any of it. Every time I think I've gotten a grip on it, so other scene or moment is just like, no. You don't get it. Try again.

Do they love each other? Yes. I mean no. I mean yes.

Did they love each other? No it was all it act. Yes it was real, but only for a short period. Yes, the whole time, but it was in a way that still had performative elements.

Did Armand control Louis's memories for selfish reasons or altruistic ones? Yes, he was scared of losing Louis's love. No, he was scared of Louis trying to kill himself again. Yes, he just couldn't handle being left for Lestat. No, he knew Louis might go back to Lestat and Louis said he didn't want that. No, he didn't love Louis he was just scared of being alone. Wait, no, he saw removing memories of all that pain as a way to make it up to Louis. No, he just didn't want to get caught. (Meanwhile, why do you even think he controlled Louis' memories on large scale? How consistent even is that with the rest of what we know of Armand's character? Do you know for sure?)

Did Louis love Armand? No, he was just rebounding. Yes, he actively pursued the relationship and initiated a lot of their first moments. Yes, he said he did, multiple times. No, because of his complicated relationship with speaking his love aloud we know he was lying. Yes, Madeleine could feel how much he loved him. No, he gave the whole "boring" speech, which were his true feelings. No, wait, that was something he instantly regretted.

O Favorito do Demônio

ARMAND & DANIEL

INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE (2024) 2.05 – Don't Be Afraid, Just Start the Tape