As someone whose background is theatrical study and performance (primarily classical), I want to talk about the nature of adaption as it relates to well-known texts, and how the #iwtv writers citing theatrical experience as a requirement is key to understanding the show.
Adaptation is its own skill set and this is an adaptation. The contextualization of Louis' blackness and the explicit queerness is the result of creative choices from Rolin and his team and that changes the rules at a baseline for the entirety of the series as it progresses.
When working with classical texts like Shakespeare, you are saddled with hundreds of years of history and historical context inherent in the work. There are different versions, there are omissions, there are
a variety of scenarios as it pertains to framing, etc.
There have been thousands of productions of Hamlet and every production is different and thrilling and that in itself is the mark of its longevity. You don't go into it thinking, "Will it be the Hamlet I see in my head?" You don't go into any theatrical production that way.
What each individual director and actor chooses to pull from a production of a classical text is their own, that is sort of the point of seeing them done over and over again. Same text, different show, because of who directed it and their vision and assessment of the material.
A playwright understands this. Walking into this show with a lens of "correctness" is going to rob you of enjoying someone's interpretation of a beloved text. You don't have to like it, you can despise it. But "correctness" has little part to play in the conversation.
There are some productions of Hamlet I cannot stand, the way they're framed, the acting choices, the directing choices, etc. But that doesn't mean I hate Hamlet and that doesn't mean that suddenly the director doesn't understand Hamlet the way I do. It's just what your taste is.
Your own interpretations as a fan and the love and appreciation you hold in private doesn't suddenly become null and void in the face of someone else's when it's not aligned. They hold their own merit individually because they're your experience. To me, that's sort of the point.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
last RT taps the sign aggressively because oh my god it’s like people don’t know how storytelling as a crafted process works anymore it’s ungodly weird to me to watch
“I don’t like them” good you’re not supposed to, their place in the story is antagonistic and the writer did it on purpose, Shakespeare wasn’t like “damn I hope people don’t hate Iago”
“Wow, I really don’t like how toxic Catherine and Heathcliff are???” Lmfao okay neither does anyone else in the damn book Cindy that’s the point
They say so much about Claudia with her costuming, each episode has some insight with how they clothe her. Like, the most outright communication of her exploration of identity and self and age can be seen plainly in what she’s settled in with attire.
Child? Woman? Something else entirely? Torn between two extremes before she settles into being neither, because she’s forever caught between child and adult and she’ll never know forward motion, I’m gonna be SICK.
Thinking about how Louis describes his feelings for Lestat with romanticized narration - its emotional distancing, makes it a STORY. There's no "he used to snore in his sleep" or mention of domestic routines, outside of Claudia's POV. Seduction is easy. Real love? That's hard.
"Let the tale seduce you..." he says, all of his early narration is dripping with overtures of romanticism. But beneath that is the lazy Sundays, talking about books they like, punch-drunk laughter after a very long day. That stuff happened, but it's harder to face losing it.
The romanticizing of who Lestat was, his maker, his lover, this enigmatic presence in his life - it's another coping strategy. Hating him for all the wrong reasons in the first interview, refusing to look at the little things in the second. One side of the pendulum to the other.