My level of interest in this genre is pretty low, but Sean Bean staring in a HBO show piqued my interest.
Now that we’re at the end of the first season, I find myself both agreeing with Ginia Bellafante’s review in the Times — after over a decade of some of the best shows, HBO has gone way off course — while also thinking that it does still fit the HBO mold.
Let me start with the positive, and there are some spoilers here. By far the most interesting thing to happen in the season was the execution of Sean Bean’s character, Eddard Stark. Only HBO would green light a show where the hero and only billable star is eliminated after the first season. Besides the mere shock value of this, it has established that in the Games of Thrones universe, we’re going to have to adjust our ideas of what a hero is — honor alone will not be enough for a knight to defeat his advisories. Stark died because he wasn’t cunning enough.
Perhaps the most compelling thing about the show is the way in which it has come up with a whole new mythology for the medieval genre. Ones of the reasons why I found the Lord of the Rings films to be so tiring was because they are heavily steeped in the tradition of the genre. Because Games isn’t operating by the classic set of the genre’s rules, there’s a genuine sense of unpredictability to what can happen. And it’s also simply refreshing see a story about knights and castles with a all new values.
So Game of Thrones is to be commended for this innovation, but did we really need a season’s worth of exposition to establish it?
Looking back on the season (which was only 10 episodes compared to HBO’s typical run of 12 to 13), not a whole lot happened. Some people will say that the show is being faithful to the books (I assume), or that it just needs this much time to introduce us to all of the characters and plots. I feel this is emblematic of so many shows on TV today — the shows insist that they are so complex that they need a half dozen episodes to set the stage. I love episodic TV, but each episode should be able to stand on its on. This is one of the aspects that made The Sopranos so great — if you go back and watch just the pilot, it’s incredible how much was established in that single hour.
In Thrones, we got a lot of predictable character arcs piecemealed over the entire season, such as Jon Snow overcoming his adversity as a bastard son by becoming a leader at the Night’s Watch, or Daenerys Targaryen emerging from her cocoon and becoming the leader her brother thought he was. And Daenerys’ arc is a perfect example of how facile the show can be (by HBO standards).
When we’re fist introduced to her she seems to be largely unaware that her brother is forcing her to marry Khal Drogo in return for an army. Nor does she flinch when her brother inspects her naked body. On her wedding night and subsequent nights after, she is raped by her husband. Then one day she asks a prostitute for advice in how to please a man, she uses the tips, she enjoys having sex, and suddenly becomes a devoted wife. It’s a really old an offensive theme — she just needs to a good screwing and her whole life will improve. All of her personal growth stems from that.
At this point, I don’t feel that I have many reasons to keep watching the show.
By far the best character is Tyrion Lannister played by Peter Dinklage. Besides being the most complex and intriguing, Dinklage seems to be the only actor who is having a good time. Everyone in the Stark family comes off as constipated (either by design or boredom). And while the show has the right idea of teasing us about the White Walkers every few episodes in order to sustain the mystery, so little information has been given about them that my interest in finding out more has been fleeting. But with how tiresome True Blood has become, I’ll probably be looking forward to Game of Thrones’ return next year.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login