![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatI saw the pilot episode of Game of Thrones tonight. Prior to viewing it, I read a smattering of non-spoilery reviews, two by people who love the fantasy genre and have fairly eclectic taste, both professional television reviewers, Matt Rush of TV Guide and Ken Tucker of Entertainment Weekly, and three from female reviewers who, well, are either 1)not fans of the fantasy genre or 2)not fans of the books and viewed it unfavorably and then compared it to television series that aren't even in the same trope. This would be akin to me telling you that I dislike Fringe because it doesn't have the scope and multi-faceted point of view or as many various characters as say, The Killing or Game of Thrones. Or stating that Glee isn't as good as Buffy the Vampire Slayer - two different tropes, the only thing they have in common is they are both in high schools. CS Lewis is not wrong - it is dangerous to review a series that falls within a genre that you are not fond of, and even more dangerous to compare it to a television series that is vastly different than it. Granted, you could say Camelot and Borgias are similar - except, I don't believe so, they are historical narratives based on legends, folklore and histories that have been written down by lots of people and are fairly well known and well-studied by many academics and scholars, much like The Tudors and Merlin, as opposed to a series of epic fantasy novels about a make-believe world intricately written by one writer over a ten-fifteen span a lot like say Tolkien did with Lord of the Rings. I haven't seen either (Camelot or The Borgias) and based on the reviews from those who love such things? Have relatively little interest in either for a simple enough reason - I find historicals based on historical record to be relatively dull and often soap-operaish. And I've grown tired of Arthurian Legends that restrict themselves to one version of the mythos, the Medievalist view, ignoring all prior takes. In short, it occurs to me in reading reviews including my own that they are largely subjective and generally unreliable.
The best reviewers I've found are those who have widely diverse taste, even more diverse than mine, perhaps? Although I lie when I state I am not fond of historicals - since I adored The Queen, and have a fondness for sagas such as The Thorn Birds, Roots, or Centennial. I also did try the Tudors. Sometimes it either grips me or it really doesn't. Often mood. Same deal with Fringe or X-Files - I've watched portions of both, more of the X-Files. I liked the X-Files better - mainly because Gillian Anderson and David Ducovny are both better actors and more charismatic than Jackson and whoever is playing Olivia. I watched 6-7 episodes of Fringe, recently tried it again - and I did not like or dislike it - so much as was sort of meh about it. I won't review it - because I'm aware of why it didn't click for me and I'm not sure it would be at all informative to anyone else. It's partly mood, it's partly a dislike of a certain type of horror genre, and it's partly the fact that all three leads grate on my nerves. And I find the plot predictable - because I've most likely watched too much of the sci-fi conspiracy procedural in my lifetime - I gave up on The Event for the same reason. They simply don't work for "me". And a lot of that has to do with my own baggage, my own career background and my education. Just as I suspect those who have issues with say Game of Thrones - struggle with it due to their educational, cultural or personal backgrounds. Like it or not we bring all our baggage with us into every situation - and inadvertently reveal portions of it when we review tv shows, often telling the reader more about us than the tv show.
I know I've commented on all of that before, rather recently in fact, but sometimes I think it bears repeating and it's a topic that has been sticking in my craw lately. So this is me ripping it out.
Did I like Game of Thrones and more importantly will you? Ah. I can answer the first question rather easily, but I'm not certain of the second. Very difficult to determine whether someone else, regardless of how well we know them will like something. Was discussing this with Momster over the phone the other night. About what my father likes. There is no discernible pattern that I can find to his tastes. For example - over 30 years ago - he loved Upstairs Downstairs, he does not however like the new version or Downton Abbey - finds both to be rather slow. Yet, he adores Ballykissangel - which is an Irish Soap Opera and rather similar. Also, he loved Prime Suspect, but finds The Killing to be too bleak. And is a fan of NCIS? Mind boggling. I'd say the man was into sports, but he goes to sleep during football games or he will take off in the middle of one to go rake leaves. OTOH - he has been known to insist on watching the games, and has watched four in a row. Throughout my life - my father has verbally smacked me upside the head for making generalizations, and forcing me to back my arguments up. Which he would probably do here, if he were to read this - stating you can't pigeon hole people or determine a pattern to their tastes any more than you can your own.
Before watching Game of Thrones - I should mention that I've read the book, and the two that directly followed it - Clash of Kings and Storm of Swords all within Martin's epic Song of Ice and Fire series - there are to be six to seven books in all.
I read the first three books in the Song of Ice and Fire series over a 5-6 year period. I think. Picked up the first one and read it in 2004. The second in 2005-2006. The third last year. It took me three - four months to read each one. And I took time off between them. They are not by any stretch of the imagination quick reads, Martin reminds me a great deal of JRR Tolkien in his intricate use of language, description, and characterization. In some respects he does with Fantasy what Ron Moore and Joss Whedon attempted to do with science-fiction, remove the elves, dwarves, wizards, and fairies and make the fantasy more realistic, a sort of pseudo-magical realism - with
elements of horror entwined. Most fantasy like most science fiction has elements of horror entwined within it. They are journeys through nightmare spaces, depicting how we survive that which we fear.
Stephen Moffat - I believe, stated recently that science fiction reflects societal fears while fantasy reflects individual fears. I'm not so sure that's entirely true. It certainly isn't true of either Tolkien or Martin. In other ways, Martin's novels remind me a great deal of Frank Herbert and his progeny's take on Dune - the intricate political narratives. And they are also reminiscent of Dorothy Dunnett's Chronicles of Lymond and it's intricate political wranglings.
Being a somewhat detail-oriented person, I like detail oriented narratives. I consider them harder to write than minimalist narratives, which are my father and most of my family's forte. I come from a family of frustrated and self-published writers. They write mostly mystery novels. They also take longer. CS Lewis did not take as long to write the Chronicles of Narnia as his friend Tolkien took to write the four novels of the Lord of the Rings. Lewis actually wrote more than Tolkien, but as Lewis has stated he wasn't as obsessed with the fine details. He was more minimalistic in style. This is true also of Hemingway and Fitzgerald. Or Anne McCaffrey and Ursula Le Guinn (Le Guinn was anything but minimalist. Although I'm not sure McCaffrey is either, perhaps Madeline L'Engel fits that better? Although I liked all three.) The details do not necessarily have to be accurate to my reality, but they should be consistent to the reality of the narrative and that world.
I am also character-oriented. I like multiple-character emotional/psychological arcs with complex moralities, often ambiguous. And I am highly analytical. So, minimalism in character depiction tends to make me wander off. I like to be surprised by where the character goes next.
Finally, I am fascinated by social psychology, organizational structure, and politics in narrative. It's why the Good Wife and West Wing were amongst my favorite tv series. And why I adored Dune and The Lord of the Rings, not so much the Chronicles of Narnia. Martin's narratives cover all three areas. And well, I'm a sucker for fantasy - it's the genre that I find the most comforting, I don't know why. Considering how much I despise the Middle Ages historically, you'd think I'd hate fantasy.
But it's the opposite. More proof that you really can't predict others tastes or make generalizations even about yourself.
While I enjoyed the books, I can't say I loved them. I'm not an obsessed fan. They weren't page turners. But I appreciate them - and admire what Martin accomplished. Martin somewhat irritated by the limitations of television scriptwriting and filmmaking, turned to novels - to do what Milan Kundera did - to write a series of novels that could not be easily adapted to film or television. To experiment with the novel format, and push it to its limits. In a novel - he found that he was not limited to one or two or three or four points of view, nor was he limited to one place, or restricted on how much violence or sex he chose to show. He was tired of fantasy novels that were clean and neat and no one fucked or got naked. He wanted to do a series that examined a conflict from various points of view, that followed characters that one normally doesn't in these series. In short he didn't want to do the Heroe's Journey. And instead wrote a series of books that contain the points of view of over 20 characters, with a cast of thousands, and take place in multiple locals. And he pulled it off. Hard to do. But each voice is distinct from the last one. And we stay in that point of view. It's third person close. Also there are characters in these novels that stuck with me long after I finished reading them - I remember Martin's books far better than well, a lot of other novels that I've read in the intervening years. So many just blur together you know?
Enuf preamble - The Review
In adapting the television series - HBO is attempting to do what George RR Martin did - create an epic fantasy for television, with multiple points of view, from various ages, genders, etc, and in various settings and locals. It's an ambitious endeavor, far more ambitious than well anything else I've seen to date. Can they pull it off? Don't know yet. Hard to tell from the first episode. But I like experimental television - or "cult" tv. TV which surprises me. This is meant to be a series of novels for television, with each scene building on the next, each character, each point of view,
slowly over time, chapter, by chapter. Intricately layered like one might construct a castle.
In some respects the endeavor reminds me a little of Battlestar Galatica - or maybe the Wire (which I have not seen and can't really comment on - except to say that I know the Wire was an attempt to create an intricately layered novel for television - I'm not sure, but I don't believe it was adapted from an established work and it is within a completely different genre, so comparisons between the two don't work past the fact that they are both experiments. In addition the Wire is over with - it is complete. While Game of Thrones is just beginning.)
The first episode of the television series Game of Thrones sets the scene rather well - we are introduced to the main characters in the initial arc. Others will be introduced as time progresses. And yes, in case you were wondering and have not read it elsewhere - it does follow the book rather closely. There are differences here and there, I'm certain, but I can't remember the book well enough to know what they are. When I state Martin's books are detailed, I'm not joking, you can smell, taste, and touch his world - his language pulls you inside it. You hear his characters talk. Their voices distinctly their own. Here, in the adaptation, I feel that as well, to a degree. There are actors that work in the adaptation better than others.
The actors or perfomers? I dare say, I'll probably like Ned Stark and Catelyn better in the HBO adaptation than I did in the novels, both characters grated in the books. Here, Scean Bean and whomever is playing Catelyn pull at my emotions. They emote so well with just their eyes. And they are not pretty - they are rugged, you see the lines of age and experience in their faces. Tyrion as portrayed by Peter Dinklater, who was the role appears to be literally written for, is pitch perfect. But Dinklater has always been a favorite of mine - if you like him here, rent The Station Agent - an independent film in which he stars as the romantic lead. Jamie - while Costa-Walder does more or less fit the part, and plays it fairly well, the jury is still out. Jamie Lannister is a difficult role - perhaps the most difficult in the story, because his arc is the most surprising, he goes places you'd not expect. Cersei is equally difficult - and Lena Hedley is portraying her well - her eyes conveying both pain and clever plotting. The children are brilliantly cast - and rather important, Bran, Ayra, Sansa, Rob and Jon Snow all play major roles. I think they cut out Rikkon? He was the baby and sort of disappears from the books. I'm half in love with the little girl who is playing Ayra. Danerys - I'm not sure of. But Vicerys - her brother works fairly well.
Narrative structure? The thing to remember - if you are new to this narrative is it is highly political and intricate. There are games within games, chess strategies within strategies. The killer of Jon Aryn is not clear cut. Any more than anything else is. Each character is like a chinese puzzle box that drives the plot. Which is intricate and twisting.
The television episode...starts with a group of men wandering through a snow filled forest. One of them goes on ahead and he comes upon a cadre of bodies, grotesquely displayed in what appears to be a ritual sacrifice or design. Horrified, one man runs back to his comrades, only to be told he is being cowardly and foolish. The comrades go to the clearing and the grotesque bodies are mysteriously gone. Then, the leader is brutally slayed by one of the dead bodies, come to life. It's subtle, we don't quite see it. The other comrades are killed, leaving only the one man - running for his life through the forest - until he is captured beyond the wall, for being a deserter. They don't believe his tale. And Ned Stark summarily chops off his head for leaving the wall. Stark forces his sons to witness this, so they can learn about duty. What a king, a ruler must do. If you give the order to execute someone, you must do it yourself.
This is prelude to the coming of the King of Westeros, Robert, and his royal family - The Lannisters, Queen Cersei, her twin brother Jamie, also head of the Kingsguard, her son, and their brother Tyrion, the imp or dwarf. Jamie is beautiful as is Cersei - tall and elegant, while Tyrion is stunted. Like all things in this world, as is shown in the beginning, what we see is not always what is. The Stark children line up to greet them. And Robert takes Ned aside to tell him about their mentor and his former right hand man, the hand of the king, death - Jon Aryn. Jon was wed to Catelynn's sister. Robert had wished to be wed to Ned's sister - who apparently was killed by the old king, Tarragyn. The Tarragyn children fled to Pentos - across the narrow sea, away from Robert and his desire to destroy their entire line. Robert as portrayed by Mark Addy - is also well done - and in some cases more interesting than he was in the books.
Three major events happen in this episode plotwise: 1) The Starks on the way back from executing the Night's Watch refugee, come upon a dead deer and a dead direwolf - that is quite rare to see beyond the wall. Direwolf's are huge. The size of a deer. The wolf has six cubs. Stark wishes to kill them, better than to make them fend for themselves in this territory far below their home. But Jon Snow convinces him to let his children take them as pets - five cubs, five kids, and it is the logo on your flag - the direwolf. So Ned acquiesces and Jon discovers a six cub, which he adopts. The cubs grow quickly and we are still in summer moving towards autumn, winter, we are told is coming. 2) At the feast, we are introduced to the Night's Watch again - via Ned's brother Ben, Jon Snow states his desire to join the Watch, since there's nothing for him here as a bastard son of Ned Stark. He's Stark's son but not Catelynn's. 3)Cersei appears to be worried that Jon Ayrn may have told Robert something about her relationship with her twin brother before Jon died. He appeared to have known about them. Jamie doesn't believe so, or they'd both be dead by now. A letter comes to Catelynn from her sister, Lysa, who has fled to the Erie, away from King's Landing, in fear, because she claims her husband, Jon, was murdered, and the Lannister's plotted it. 4) Bran, who has been told repeatedly by his mother and father not to climb or to stop climbing, along with everyone else, climbs very high, all the way up to the top tower, where he discovers Jamie and Cersei having sexual relations. (OR fucking like dogs - literally). Cersei sees him. And tells Jamie to stop. He does. And looks up. Races to catch Bran before he can retreat or fall, not sure which, and asks, "Are you mad?" Cersei - terrified repeats, he saw us! Jamie asks how old he is, to which he responds - "10". And then, glancing back at Cersei - who repeats it again. Casually glances down to see how high it is, then pushes the boy off the ledge to the ground below, stating somewhat cavalierly or wryly, "the things I do for love." (Don't write Jamie off yet, dear reader, trust me when I state his arc rivals Spike's in Whedon's tale. And yes, the women have interesting arcs too. Cersei, Sansa, Ayra, Catelynn and Danerys will all surprise you.)
Danerys meanwhile, the child of the old murdered and ousted King Tarragyrn, is wed to the Drothkai,
the ruler of the area she currently resides in. With his thousand strong army. They are brutal. And tribal.
The sex and violence in Martin's novels is somewhat graphic. Although he really doesn't dwell on sexual violence, so much as refer to it. Not sure if that will be true here or not. In my view, it makes the story more realistic. There's a primal feeling to that time period which I think Martin conveys well in his books, a raw energy. And this episode demonstrates that well.
I rather enjoyed this episode and am very pleased that I got HBO. So many perks. First off, no commercials, something people outside the US most likely can't fully appreciate. But to watch a tv show without any breaks in the flow, the need to fast-forward, or the jarring interruption of a commercial - is a pleasure. Also, to be able to not worry about unloading the DVD...so nice.
I don't agree with the detractors. The characters resonated with me. I love Scean Bean's weary Ned Stark, and Catelynn who begs him not to go. Mark Addy's Robert - the King, who really just wants to hunt and whore to his heart's content. And the devilish twins, Jamie and Cersei, one who just wants his sister and to sword-fight, taking little seriously, the other who desires power at any cost.
All the characters, everything about it - fascinates and thrills me like a shiny new toy. Something chewy, to play with. I think I may like the tv series better than I liked the books.
But despite all that? Does this episode succeed in its' aim? To introduce the world, the characters, and the main plot arcs - in a short period of time, without boring exposition? And remain faithful to the books from which it is adapted? All the while jumping between numerous points of view and innovatively expanding on the art form? Yes, I believe it does succeed on all those points. While far from perfect, but things rarely are, it does do what it aims to do, and rather well I think.
Overall rating? A
The best reviewers I've found are those who have widely diverse taste, even more diverse than mine, perhaps? Although I lie when I state I am not fond of historicals - since I adored The Queen, and have a fondness for sagas such as The Thorn Birds, Roots, or Centennial. I also did try the Tudors. Sometimes it either grips me or it really doesn't. Often mood. Same deal with Fringe or X-Files - I've watched portions of both, more of the X-Files. I liked the X-Files better - mainly because Gillian Anderson and David Ducovny are both better actors and more charismatic than Jackson and whoever is playing Olivia. I watched 6-7 episodes of Fringe, recently tried it again - and I did not like or dislike it - so much as was sort of meh about it. I won't review it - because I'm aware of why it didn't click for me and I'm not sure it would be at all informative to anyone else. It's partly mood, it's partly a dislike of a certain type of horror genre, and it's partly the fact that all three leads grate on my nerves. And I find the plot predictable - because I've most likely watched too much of the sci-fi conspiracy procedural in my lifetime - I gave up on The Event for the same reason. They simply don't work for "me". And a lot of that has to do with my own baggage, my own career background and my education. Just as I suspect those who have issues with say Game of Thrones - struggle with it due to their educational, cultural or personal backgrounds. Like it or not we bring all our baggage with us into every situation - and inadvertently reveal portions of it when we review tv shows, often telling the reader more about us than the tv show.
I know I've commented on all of that before, rather recently in fact, but sometimes I think it bears repeating and it's a topic that has been sticking in my craw lately. So this is me ripping it out.
Did I like Game of Thrones and more importantly will you? Ah. I can answer the first question rather easily, but I'm not certain of the second. Very difficult to determine whether someone else, regardless of how well we know them will like something. Was discussing this with Momster over the phone the other night. About what my father likes. There is no discernible pattern that I can find to his tastes. For example - over 30 years ago - he loved Upstairs Downstairs, he does not however like the new version or Downton Abbey - finds both to be rather slow. Yet, he adores Ballykissangel - which is an Irish Soap Opera and rather similar. Also, he loved Prime Suspect, but finds The Killing to be too bleak. And is a fan of NCIS? Mind boggling. I'd say the man was into sports, but he goes to sleep during football games or he will take off in the middle of one to go rake leaves. OTOH - he has been known to insist on watching the games, and has watched four in a row. Throughout my life - my father has verbally smacked me upside the head for making generalizations, and forcing me to back my arguments up. Which he would probably do here, if he were to read this - stating you can't pigeon hole people or determine a pattern to their tastes any more than you can your own.
Before watching Game of Thrones - I should mention that I've read the book, and the two that directly followed it - Clash of Kings and Storm of Swords all within Martin's epic Song of Ice and Fire series - there are to be six to seven books in all.
I read the first three books in the Song of Ice and Fire series over a 5-6 year period. I think. Picked up the first one and read it in 2004. The second in 2005-2006. The third last year. It took me three - four months to read each one. And I took time off between them. They are not by any stretch of the imagination quick reads, Martin reminds me a great deal of JRR Tolkien in his intricate use of language, description, and characterization. In some respects he does with Fantasy what Ron Moore and Joss Whedon attempted to do with science-fiction, remove the elves, dwarves, wizards, and fairies and make the fantasy more realistic, a sort of pseudo-magical realism - with
elements of horror entwined. Most fantasy like most science fiction has elements of horror entwined within it. They are journeys through nightmare spaces, depicting how we survive that which we fear.
Stephen Moffat - I believe, stated recently that science fiction reflects societal fears while fantasy reflects individual fears. I'm not so sure that's entirely true. It certainly isn't true of either Tolkien or Martin. In other ways, Martin's novels remind me a great deal of Frank Herbert and his progeny's take on Dune - the intricate political narratives. And they are also reminiscent of Dorothy Dunnett's Chronicles of Lymond and it's intricate political wranglings.
Being a somewhat detail-oriented person, I like detail oriented narratives. I consider them harder to write than minimalist narratives, which are my father and most of my family's forte. I come from a family of frustrated and self-published writers. They write mostly mystery novels. They also take longer. CS Lewis did not take as long to write the Chronicles of Narnia as his friend Tolkien took to write the four novels of the Lord of the Rings. Lewis actually wrote more than Tolkien, but as Lewis has stated he wasn't as obsessed with the fine details. He was more minimalistic in style. This is true also of Hemingway and Fitzgerald. Or Anne McCaffrey and Ursula Le Guinn (Le Guinn was anything but minimalist. Although I'm not sure McCaffrey is either, perhaps Madeline L'Engel fits that better? Although I liked all three.) The details do not necessarily have to be accurate to my reality, but they should be consistent to the reality of the narrative and that world.
I am also character-oriented. I like multiple-character emotional/psychological arcs with complex moralities, often ambiguous. And I am highly analytical. So, minimalism in character depiction tends to make me wander off. I like to be surprised by where the character goes next.
Finally, I am fascinated by social psychology, organizational structure, and politics in narrative. It's why the Good Wife and West Wing were amongst my favorite tv series. And why I adored Dune and The Lord of the Rings, not so much the Chronicles of Narnia. Martin's narratives cover all three areas. And well, I'm a sucker for fantasy - it's the genre that I find the most comforting, I don't know why. Considering how much I despise the Middle Ages historically, you'd think I'd hate fantasy.
But it's the opposite. More proof that you really can't predict others tastes or make generalizations even about yourself.
While I enjoyed the books, I can't say I loved them. I'm not an obsessed fan. They weren't page turners. But I appreciate them - and admire what Martin accomplished. Martin somewhat irritated by the limitations of television scriptwriting and filmmaking, turned to novels - to do what Milan Kundera did - to write a series of novels that could not be easily adapted to film or television. To experiment with the novel format, and push it to its limits. In a novel - he found that he was not limited to one or two or three or four points of view, nor was he limited to one place, or restricted on how much violence or sex he chose to show. He was tired of fantasy novels that were clean and neat and no one fucked or got naked. He wanted to do a series that examined a conflict from various points of view, that followed characters that one normally doesn't in these series. In short he didn't want to do the Heroe's Journey. And instead wrote a series of books that contain the points of view of over 20 characters, with a cast of thousands, and take place in multiple locals. And he pulled it off. Hard to do. But each voice is distinct from the last one. And we stay in that point of view. It's third person close. Also there are characters in these novels that stuck with me long after I finished reading them - I remember Martin's books far better than well, a lot of other novels that I've read in the intervening years. So many just blur together you know?
Enuf preamble - The Review
In adapting the television series - HBO is attempting to do what George RR Martin did - create an epic fantasy for television, with multiple points of view, from various ages, genders, etc, and in various settings and locals. It's an ambitious endeavor, far more ambitious than well anything else I've seen to date. Can they pull it off? Don't know yet. Hard to tell from the first episode. But I like experimental television - or "cult" tv. TV which surprises me. This is meant to be a series of novels for television, with each scene building on the next, each character, each point of view,
slowly over time, chapter, by chapter. Intricately layered like one might construct a castle.
In some respects the endeavor reminds me a little of Battlestar Galatica - or maybe the Wire (which I have not seen and can't really comment on - except to say that I know the Wire was an attempt to create an intricately layered novel for television - I'm not sure, but I don't believe it was adapted from an established work and it is within a completely different genre, so comparisons between the two don't work past the fact that they are both experiments. In addition the Wire is over with - it is complete. While Game of Thrones is just beginning.)
The first episode of the television series Game of Thrones sets the scene rather well - we are introduced to the main characters in the initial arc. Others will be introduced as time progresses. And yes, in case you were wondering and have not read it elsewhere - it does follow the book rather closely. There are differences here and there, I'm certain, but I can't remember the book well enough to know what they are. When I state Martin's books are detailed, I'm not joking, you can smell, taste, and touch his world - his language pulls you inside it. You hear his characters talk. Their voices distinctly their own. Here, in the adaptation, I feel that as well, to a degree. There are actors that work in the adaptation better than others.
The actors or perfomers? I dare say, I'll probably like Ned Stark and Catelyn better in the HBO adaptation than I did in the novels, both characters grated in the books. Here, Scean Bean and whomever is playing Catelyn pull at my emotions. They emote so well with just their eyes. And they are not pretty - they are rugged, you see the lines of age and experience in their faces. Tyrion as portrayed by Peter Dinklater, who was the role appears to be literally written for, is pitch perfect. But Dinklater has always been a favorite of mine - if you like him here, rent The Station Agent - an independent film in which he stars as the romantic lead. Jamie - while Costa-Walder does more or less fit the part, and plays it fairly well, the jury is still out. Jamie Lannister is a difficult role - perhaps the most difficult in the story, because his arc is the most surprising, he goes places you'd not expect. Cersei is equally difficult - and Lena Hedley is portraying her well - her eyes conveying both pain and clever plotting. The children are brilliantly cast - and rather important, Bran, Ayra, Sansa, Rob and Jon Snow all play major roles. I think they cut out Rikkon? He was the baby and sort of disappears from the books. I'm half in love with the little girl who is playing Ayra. Danerys - I'm not sure of. But Vicerys - her brother works fairly well.
Narrative structure? The thing to remember - if you are new to this narrative is it is highly political and intricate. There are games within games, chess strategies within strategies. The killer of Jon Aryn is not clear cut. Any more than anything else is. Each character is like a chinese puzzle box that drives the plot. Which is intricate and twisting.
The television episode...starts with a group of men wandering through a snow filled forest. One of them goes on ahead and he comes upon a cadre of bodies, grotesquely displayed in what appears to be a ritual sacrifice or design. Horrified, one man runs back to his comrades, only to be told he is being cowardly and foolish. The comrades go to the clearing and the grotesque bodies are mysteriously gone. Then, the leader is brutally slayed by one of the dead bodies, come to life. It's subtle, we don't quite see it. The other comrades are killed, leaving only the one man - running for his life through the forest - until he is captured beyond the wall, for being a deserter. They don't believe his tale. And Ned Stark summarily chops off his head for leaving the wall. Stark forces his sons to witness this, so they can learn about duty. What a king, a ruler must do. If you give the order to execute someone, you must do it yourself.
This is prelude to the coming of the King of Westeros, Robert, and his royal family - The Lannisters, Queen Cersei, her twin brother Jamie, also head of the Kingsguard, her son, and their brother Tyrion, the imp or dwarf. Jamie is beautiful as is Cersei - tall and elegant, while Tyrion is stunted. Like all things in this world, as is shown in the beginning, what we see is not always what is. The Stark children line up to greet them. And Robert takes Ned aside to tell him about their mentor and his former right hand man, the hand of the king, death - Jon Aryn. Jon was wed to Catelynn's sister. Robert had wished to be wed to Ned's sister - who apparently was killed by the old king, Tarragyn. The Tarragyn children fled to Pentos - across the narrow sea, away from Robert and his desire to destroy their entire line. Robert as portrayed by Mark Addy - is also well done - and in some cases more interesting than he was in the books.
Three major events happen in this episode plotwise: 1) The Starks on the way back from executing the Night's Watch refugee, come upon a dead deer and a dead direwolf - that is quite rare to see beyond the wall. Direwolf's are huge. The size of a deer. The wolf has six cubs. Stark wishes to kill them, better than to make them fend for themselves in this territory far below their home. But Jon Snow convinces him to let his children take them as pets - five cubs, five kids, and it is the logo on your flag - the direwolf. So Ned acquiesces and Jon discovers a six cub, which he adopts. The cubs grow quickly and we are still in summer moving towards autumn, winter, we are told is coming. 2) At the feast, we are introduced to the Night's Watch again - via Ned's brother Ben, Jon Snow states his desire to join the Watch, since there's nothing for him here as a bastard son of Ned Stark. He's Stark's son but not Catelynn's. 3)Cersei appears to be worried that Jon Ayrn may have told Robert something about her relationship with her twin brother before Jon died. He appeared to have known about them. Jamie doesn't believe so, or they'd both be dead by now. A letter comes to Catelynn from her sister, Lysa, who has fled to the Erie, away from King's Landing, in fear, because she claims her husband, Jon, was murdered, and the Lannister's plotted it. 4) Bran, who has been told repeatedly by his mother and father not to climb or to stop climbing, along with everyone else, climbs very high, all the way up to the top tower, where he discovers Jamie and Cersei having sexual relations. (OR fucking like dogs - literally). Cersei sees him. And tells Jamie to stop. He does. And looks up. Races to catch Bran before he can retreat or fall, not sure which, and asks, "Are you mad?" Cersei - terrified repeats, he saw us! Jamie asks how old he is, to which he responds - "10". And then, glancing back at Cersei - who repeats it again. Casually glances down to see how high it is, then pushes the boy off the ledge to the ground below, stating somewhat cavalierly or wryly, "the things I do for love." (Don't write Jamie off yet, dear reader, trust me when I state his arc rivals Spike's in Whedon's tale. And yes, the women have interesting arcs too. Cersei, Sansa, Ayra, Catelynn and Danerys will all surprise you.)
Danerys meanwhile, the child of the old murdered and ousted King Tarragyrn, is wed to the Drothkai,
the ruler of the area she currently resides in. With his thousand strong army. They are brutal. And tribal.
The sex and violence in Martin's novels is somewhat graphic. Although he really doesn't dwell on sexual violence, so much as refer to it. Not sure if that will be true here or not. In my view, it makes the story more realistic. There's a primal feeling to that time period which I think Martin conveys well in his books, a raw energy. And this episode demonstrates that well.
I rather enjoyed this episode and am very pleased that I got HBO. So many perks. First off, no commercials, something people outside the US most likely can't fully appreciate. But to watch a tv show without any breaks in the flow, the need to fast-forward, or the jarring interruption of a commercial - is a pleasure. Also, to be able to not worry about unloading the DVD...so nice.
I don't agree with the detractors. The characters resonated with me. I love Scean Bean's weary Ned Stark, and Catelynn who begs him not to go. Mark Addy's Robert - the King, who really just wants to hunt and whore to his heart's content. And the devilish twins, Jamie and Cersei, one who just wants his sister and to sword-fight, taking little seriously, the other who desires power at any cost.
All the characters, everything about it - fascinates and thrills me like a shiny new toy. Something chewy, to play with. I think I may like the tv series better than I liked the books.
But despite all that? Does this episode succeed in its' aim? To introduce the world, the characters, and the main plot arcs - in a short period of time, without boring exposition? And remain faithful to the books from which it is adapted? All the while jumping between numerous points of view and innovatively expanding on the art form? Yes, I believe it does succeed on all those points. While far from perfect, but things rarely are, it does do what it aims to do, and rather well I think.
Overall rating? A
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-04-20 06:49 pm (UTC)He does more than take a liking to Brienne - he literally saves her life at great risk to his own. And he confesses to her his story. Plus has this horrendous nightmare that convinces him that he's been going the wrong way. Oh in Storm, Jaime is unrecognizable by the end, completely different from the character in the earlier books - and it's a huge plot point, because he actually falls out of love with Cersei and becomes ashamed of what he has done for her. The character questions every single thing he did.
The change in the character - changes the direction of the plot.
His change is well along the same lines as Spike's in Buffy S6-7, but even more drastic.