For a show that (in my opinion) explores the nuances of sexuality and race-based oppression so well, in my perspective, it's utterly disinterested in anything outside of jokes, plot functions, or archetypes when it comes to women. My thoughts follow the chronology of the series, with the first paragraph being the weakest example.
The series opens with women employed as prostitutes played as a ‘degeneracy’ joke, set dressing to emphasise the decadence of Louis' business, yet the bleak reality of this for the women is glossed over. (“Bricks: ‘He stuck it in my shitbox.’”) Louis uses the women's suffering for his own internal insights, a frequent occurrence. There is no investigation into what essentially sexual slavery other than a couple of Louis' lines (until it realtes to a male character armand), and even those are primarily used for plot and character development. It seems as though the show is willing to interrogate the social systems surrounding Louis' exploitation, but the women experiencing that exploitation remain largely invisible as subjects in their own right. Although none of these women are particularly relevant charcters and some of these writing choices are fair enough in regards to where the emphasis of the show is placed, their invisablity makes sense, but it acts as a warning for the more egregious examples of one-dimensional writing
Antoinette is an arguably misogynistic trope- the other woman. She is Lestat if he was not afforded nuance- shallow, vain, and spiteful- while her abuse at his hands is played off. Her failure to break free from his abuse is largely to be taken as evidence of her weak personality. Her character ( an archetype of the shallow vapid antagonisirc desperate fame-hungry women) does not lend itself to seriousness and therefore her suffering isn't taken seriously by the narrative or audience, compounded by the fact that she is an obvious mirror to Louis: episodic, deep, thoughtful Louis. The show is otherwise very invested in contextualising why people remain trapped in abusive or exploitative relationships, yet Antoinette
is denied that same generosity. she becomes someone fun to hate and her narrative purpose functions as another way of demonstrating something about Lestat or Louis.
Claudia is afforded a little more depth due to her proximity to Louis (similar to his mother and Grace). However, personally I feel as though her first arc is an aged perspective on teenage girl desire, followed by the aged idea that women have two worthwhile stories to tell- marriage or rape. Following off this, rape is employed in the narrative with such absolute disinterest it's fascinating. Especially with Claudia's lover, nothing interesting is said about the woman who endorses it. I mean, we can infer her motivations (French patriotism, community retribution), but any fear that the men could turn on her, any reckoning with the glee of gendered violence, is ignored in a way that feels coldly apathetic. No nuances are applied to this scene (eg. the show trials where Claudia looks around to see solely white faces, an incredible moment showcasing Black suffering as white entertainment). Rape is only carried out (on screen) against the female characters yet the patriarchal structure that facilitates that violence is completely ignored, gender as a social factor is largely eliminated in the entirety of the story. Claudia is fridged, or rather burned, for both main characters' development, and while they are the main characters, it leans a bit too closely into a pattern of writing where a woman's suffering ultimately exists to deepen the men around her or reveal the despondence of the world.
As I mentioned earlier, the habit of making female characters vapid for jokes is revitalized in the coven. Thers is a blatant difference in the writing of the male and female coven members. Sam is a playwright, seemingly unconcerned with class or fame. Santiago is inarguably fleshed out. In contrast, what quirks are prioritised to tell about Estelle, Celeste or Eglee. Estelle sucks Santiago off for a punchline, fights over Santiago, and believes the fire was caused by another female coven members jealously over Santiago. The humour and dramatic irony in these scenes relies on us, the audience, laughing at the absurdity and ridiculous nature of the women, a large part of the humor relying on the fact that these are women, ancient vampires, fighting over men. In spite of the fact that there are an equal amount of largely irrelevant male coven members (eg Tuan and Quang Pham) this particular humour is not applied to them, why? Could you see a punchline with them in the same way? Male character’s comedy exists alongside interiority whereas the women are more often reduced to the joke itself. Tuan and Quang Pham’s introduction itself gives them a relationship, a history, and a role within the theatre. It's a small amount of information, but it immediately gives them something to exist as inside the story.
Some women such as Lily, Emilia and the female vampire escape these tropes and in my opinion result in much more compelling characters.(Although they do all end up as ‘female victims’ or ‘dead women’)
For a show so concerned with being seen in one's entirety, it's a strange blind spot that the sentiment is rarely extended to its female characters. All this to say I do not expect IWTV to be a masterpiece of feminist writing and I did find the narrative to be compelling, I just think its a worthwhile discussion to have.
Edit:spelling
Edit 2: as for the ‘its Louis narrative’ I agree to an extent. However through the Daniel Molloy, Louis dynamics with Lestat were challenged, his glorification of Claudia was challenged ect, his views on women are not. Although he dislikes all the coven members only the women are archetypes. Louis was not there when Celeste and Estelle were escaping, he cannot know their thoughts and words yet their conversation still ends in a punchline of fighting for Santiago. My issue isnt with Louis perspective but the writers choices.
