d 🦇

🩸🧵 thread of threads 🧵🩸

it’s a shockingly conservative way of viewing art. ‘but how would it LOOK ?’ is the wrong question, regressive and inward-looking. ‘but what does it MEAN ?’ is the right one, curious and open to possibility.

- may potentially internalise such Wrong and Dangerous ideas as opposed to taking the narrative on its own terms & exploring WHY certain choices are made. it’s the continued moralisation of art to justify the rightness of one’s own myopic sensibilities & preferences.

not only is the obsession over optics indicative of deeply shallow engagement with art that renders any serious attempt at ‘analysis’ meaningless, it’s also one step removed from the pearl-clutching ‘think of the children !’- more concerned with how unsuspecting audiences -

the “optics above all else” lens of analysis is so deeply limiting to the types of stories we can tell bc i think capitulating to optics prioritises the opinion of people who think in stereotype as opposed to prioritising representation in niche, problematic or taboo stories

louis they’re onto you babe

paris, 1780

gabrielle and lestat are mother and son and lestat and nicki are father and son and lestat and armand are brothers and armand and nicki are cousins and brothers in law and nicki and gabrielle are aunt nephew

as much as i’m a gabistat gooner their relationship will damage lestat which is also delicious because i love him suffering as much as anne rice did but also i’m going to die

when you're caught in a love triangle with your ex husband and your mom but they're lowkey the same person

btw every time gabi comes on screen next season I WILL be posting this

lestat looking for gabrielle in every woman, looking for magnus in every man...

GODDDD WHYYYY IS SHE IN THAT WIG PLEASE WHY

IT'S HAPPENING 😭

WHOOPS and some more 💭💭💭

it’s as if he has this guttural, almost primal epiphany that we all eventually have, which is that what gives life, and all the beauty and goodness life has to offer, any meaning whatsoever is the fact that it ends. he didn’t ask for it! and now the vampires just… endure

he’s so young, in love with life, its art/people, and he’s faced with the nothingness that plagues his nightmares. still, he stares into that void and he picks it. OVER eternal life. even though up until that v second, i think he’d have told anyone he wanted to live forever. —

one of the most powerful moments in tvl for me is when magnus offers lestat eternal life on the brink of death and lestat says no. he chooses mortal death in spite of his OVERWHELMING existential dread, his fascination with humanity and his perpetual curiosity for life —

siamo a dei livelli di “le tende sono blu perché sono blu” mai visti prima d’ora io capisco che a scuola colorino con le matite e basta però questa è la base della comprensione del testo dio santo

americani che siccome non sanno nulla della commedia dell’arte dicono che armand che ha vissuto nell’ITALIA RINASCIMENTALE non si ricorda i personaggi della commedia dell’arte e ha detto che lestat interpretava arlecchino invece di lelio perché si è CONFUSO