Game of Thrones
Jason and I finally watched the first episode of Game of Thrones last night, HBO's series based on the first book of George R. R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire epic fantasy series.
I have read the first four books of the series--they're promising the fifth one soon, but they've been promising that for a while and, as Neil Gaiman famously said, George R.R. Martin is not my bitch, so I'll just believe it when I hold #5 in my paws. A woman I would otherwise call a friend gave me the first three and I foolishly assumed that it was a trilogy. It's a good series--the world is well-built and the plotting is intricate. Almost too intricate at times, but Martin has been quoted as saying that after writing for television for years he wanted enjoy the freedom of the novel and write something absolutely unfilmable.
HBO's decision to bring this work to television has been somewhat controversial. HBO's head honcho himself said that he's never been interested in the fantasy genre, but that he'd learned from the experience of True Blood that if you film a cult favorite with respect, giving it a reasonable budget and recruiting quality actors and creative staff, its fans will flock to you and bring their friends. I'm delighted when decision makers actually listen to their data (as opposed to all the ones who express surprise every single time adult women go to a movie) and I've been looking forward to seeing Game of Thrones since it was announced over a year ago.
Not all reviewers were as eager. In fact, this show produced more vitriol than I've seen in quite a while. Gina Bellafante at the New York Times wrote this sexist rant, accusing the creators of the show of being "cheaters" for daring to stray out of the "realistic" canon. And Troy Patterson titled his review--if you can dignify it with that title--"Quasi-Medieval, Dragon-Ridden Fantasy Crap" and then declared that to be a technical term. In both cases, the reviewers seemed deeply offended that anyone might enjoy watching such a thing, much less spend money to make it.
So what did I think of the first episode? It's a beautiful production, without shying away from the realities of people living close to their food sources in warrior culture. The acting is first rate, which is no surprise given the cast. Peter Dinklage as Tyrion Lannister is the cream of the crop, but everyone's giving it their A game. Harry Lloyd, as Viserys, is a marvelously evil twit. My biggest question is Lena Headley as Cersei--she is a bit more sardonic and less innocently evil than I would have chosen for the role--but I'm willing to see how she plays it out.
My biggest question is whether I needed to see a dramatization of these books at all. In the books, much of the action is told from the childrens' perspective, while the show takes a more omniscient approach. This has several ripple effects. For one, characters that were extremely sympathetic from their own point of view become more obnoxious at a distance--this is particularly noticeable with Sansa (who is now more obviously a child, not just an overbearing elder sister) and Arya (who really is a little pest, even if she has a good heart). Secondly, the innocence of the child's perspective--where even objectively horrible events are no scarier than the boogey man--is lost to my own more adult horror at the things happening to them. This is not a pretty fantasy, where good battles evil and wins every time. And that can be hard to watch sometimes, especially when you know what's coming.
I have read the first four books of the series--they're promising the fifth one soon, but they've been promising that for a while and, as Neil Gaiman famously said, George R.R. Martin is not my bitch, so I'll just believe it when I hold #5 in my paws. A woman I would otherwise call a friend gave me the first three and I foolishly assumed that it was a trilogy. It's a good series--the world is well-built and the plotting is intricate. Almost too intricate at times, but Martin has been quoted as saying that after writing for television for years he wanted enjoy the freedom of the novel and write something absolutely unfilmable.
HBO's decision to bring this work to television has been somewhat controversial. HBO's head honcho himself said that he's never been interested in the fantasy genre, but that he'd learned from the experience of True Blood that if you film a cult favorite with respect, giving it a reasonable budget and recruiting quality actors and creative staff, its fans will flock to you and bring their friends. I'm delighted when decision makers actually listen to their data (as opposed to all the ones who express surprise every single time adult women go to a movie) and I've been looking forward to seeing Game of Thrones since it was announced over a year ago.
Not all reviewers were as eager. In fact, this show produced more vitriol than I've seen in quite a while. Gina Bellafante at the New York Times wrote this sexist rant, accusing the creators of the show of being "cheaters" for daring to stray out of the "realistic" canon. And Troy Patterson titled his review--if you can dignify it with that title--"Quasi-Medieval, Dragon-Ridden Fantasy Crap" and then declared that to be a technical term. In both cases, the reviewers seemed deeply offended that anyone might enjoy watching such a thing, much less spend money to make it.
So what did I think of the first episode? It's a beautiful production, without shying away from the realities of people living close to their food sources in warrior culture. The acting is first rate, which is no surprise given the cast. Peter Dinklage as Tyrion Lannister is the cream of the crop, but everyone's giving it their A game. Harry Lloyd, as Viserys, is a marvelously evil twit. My biggest question is Lena Headley as Cersei--she is a bit more sardonic and less innocently evil than I would have chosen for the role--but I'm willing to see how she plays it out.
My biggest question is whether I needed to see a dramatization of these books at all. In the books, much of the action is told from the childrens' perspective, while the show takes a more omniscient approach. This has several ripple effects. For one, characters that were extremely sympathetic from their own point of view become more obnoxious at a distance--this is particularly noticeable with Sansa (who is now more obviously a child, not just an overbearing elder sister) and Arya (who really is a little pest, even if she has a good heart). Secondly, the innocence of the child's perspective--where even objectively horrible events are no scarier than the boogey man--is lost to my own more adult horror at the things happening to them. This is not a pretty fantasy, where good battles evil and wins every time. And that can be hard to watch sometimes, especially when you know what's coming.