Sunday, 26 June 2016
Sunday, 19 June 2016
Death cooled down
Season 6, Episode 8
Contrary to many on Twitter (well, according to this NZ Herald article) I didn't find last week's episode of Game of Thrones boring at all. It featured everything that makes a 'regular' GoT episode great. (I contrast regular with those set aside primarily for epic battles, so see you next week.)
I found this reflection on the episode's themes and decisions in a You Tube comment from gutz1981.
"I think the deaths that we did not see in this episode were more to do with a directorial choice. Yet unlike other off screen "Deaths" these were confirmed almost soon after. Even the death of the actress was off camera. This episode seemed to have a theme about death and "Last words" as mentioned by the hound. The men who were hanged were not allowed to be touched by the Hound and then they allowed him [to kill them] but only by hanging. [Missandei's] joke was about a man who did not know how to swim but knew how to ask for help in 19 different languages before he drowned. Bron and Pod talking about how everyone wants to kill a squire. Trail by combat is abolished. And Jamie talks about who he is willing to kill to get back to Cerise..."
That.
Plus, the Hound killed a bunch of people with an axe.
Actually, I wish predicting the Hound's killing spree of rogue knights from the Brotherhood Wthout Banners wasn't the only thing I stood by from last week's post. I was right after all in criticising the way the Waif's attack on Arya was written.
I suspect some of the disappointment for No One was that none of the theories of what was happening with Arya and the Waif came to pass. As the Washington Post explains, they all had at least one thing in common - namely being wrong. Another thing they had in common was that they were all pretty far fetched. I don't mind the more prosaic resolution to that subplot, but it does mean the criticism of Arya's behaviour at the end of the previous episode stands.
There was also the lack of traditional pay-off to some scenes. In particular, people were disappointed that we didn't get to see the final clash between Arya and the Waif. On stuff Jack Price acknowledges the impact of the shot where Arya cuts the candle ["cuts the candle" sounds like it should be a euphemism for something] but then suggests they should have shown the fight somehow.
But no; this time, you don't get to see the pointy end.
As Mr 1981 observed, there was a deliberate choice to undermine expected conflicts (such as Tommen ending trail by combat) and to have understated resolutions to the conflicts that did occur.
It was like a palate cleanser for the battle to come.
The final confrontation between the Waif and Arya was just right because:
- it fitted perfectly with the overall theme, while still allowing for a climax to the episode
- it provided variety: Thrones has a lot of sword fight showdowns, and not many chase scenes; they
made this mostly a chase scene, and it was a good one. Yeah let's have a little medieval parkour
- it paid off the 'blind Arya' subplot.
I have some criticisms of the episode. Arya was able to defeat the Waif wth her 'Daredevil' powers, and that's fine, that was set-up. But she also suddenly seems to have the athleticism of Black Widow and the healing powers of Wolverine.
Killing Lady Crane was a missed opportunity. The opportunity being to not kill her. They managed to create a reasonably compelling and sympathetic character in a few episodes, and then killed her in a predictable way. Having minor but interesting characters come and go is something Thrones should do more. Not killing the character would have been the more surprising development, and her death didn't add anything. Killing Lady Crane was actually a very formulaic thing for the show to do, in an episode that otherwise messed with its own standards, just a bit.
Contrary to many on Twitter (well, according to this NZ Herald article) I didn't find last week's episode of Game of Thrones boring at all. It featured everything that makes a 'regular' GoT episode great. (I contrast regular with those set aside primarily for epic battles, so see you next week.)
I found this reflection on the episode's themes and decisions in a You Tube comment from gutz1981.
"I think the deaths that we did not see in this episode were more to do with a directorial choice. Yet unlike other off screen "Deaths" these were confirmed almost soon after. Even the death of the actress was off camera. This episode seemed to have a theme about death and "Last words" as mentioned by the hound. The men who were hanged were not allowed to be touched by the Hound and then they allowed him [to kill them] but only by hanging. [Missandei's] joke was about a man who did not know how to swim but knew how to ask for help in 19 different languages before he drowned. Bron and Pod talking about how everyone wants to kill a squire. Trail by combat is abolished. And Jamie talks about who he is willing to kill to get back to Cerise..."
That.
Plus, the Hound killed a bunch of people with an axe.
Actually, I wish predicting the Hound's killing spree of rogue knights from the Brotherhood Wthout Banners wasn't the only thing I stood by from last week's post. I was right after all in criticising the way the Waif's attack on Arya was written.
I suspect some of the disappointment for No One was that none of the theories of what was happening with Arya and the Waif came to pass. As the Washington Post explains, they all had at least one thing in common - namely being wrong. Another thing they had in common was that they were all pretty far fetched. I don't mind the more prosaic resolution to that subplot, but it does mean the criticism of Arya's behaviour at the end of the previous episode stands.
There was also the lack of traditional pay-off to some scenes. In particular, people were disappointed that we didn't get to see the final clash between Arya and the Waif. On stuff Jack Price acknowledges the impact of the shot where Arya cuts the candle ["cuts the candle" sounds like it should be a euphemism for something] but then suggests they should have shown the fight somehow.
But no; this time, you don't get to see the pointy end.
As Mr 1981 observed, there was a deliberate choice to undermine expected conflicts (such as Tommen ending trail by combat) and to have understated resolutions to the conflicts that did occur.
It was like a palate cleanser for the battle to come.
The final confrontation between the Waif and Arya was just right because:
- it fitted perfectly with the overall theme, while still allowing for a climax to the episode
- it provided variety: Thrones has a lot of sword fight showdowns, and not many chase scenes; they
made this mostly a chase scene, and it was a good one. Yeah let's have a little medieval parkour
- it paid off the 'blind Arya' subplot.
I have some criticisms of the episode. Arya was able to defeat the Waif wth her 'Daredevil' powers, and that's fine, that was set-up. But she also suddenly seems to have the athleticism of Black Widow and the healing powers of Wolverine.
Killing Lady Crane was a missed opportunity. The opportunity being to not kill her. They managed to create a reasonably compelling and sympathetic character in a few episodes, and then killed her in a predictable way. Having minor but interesting characters come and go is something Thrones should do more. Not killing the character would have been the more surprising development, and her death didn't add anything. Killing Lady Crane was actually a very formulaic thing for the show to do, in an episode that otherwise messed with its own standards, just a bit.
Monday, 6 June 2016
The Broken Man
Season 6, Episode 7
Below bullet points are a very quick set of comments more or less written up live. Modifications in square brackets [like this].
Below bullet points are a very quick set of comments more or less written up live. Modifications in square brackets [like this].
- Hound's back! No real surprise. If you don't see them die...
- I went into this episode worried for Arya because of her act of kindness last week. I recall a portentous exchange early in the series (probably season 2 or 3) with Arya and the Hound. The Hound said something to the effect that she was kind and her kindness would get her killed someday. Is today the day? [It wasn't, but fuck I thought for a second there...]
- Cersi put in her place by Olenna Tyrell. She raises a good point - where can Cersi go from here? [Next week appears to be the 'I choose violence' episode, so we're about to find out.] I won't be surprised if Cersi gets killed off at some stage, but I very much doubt it will as the direct result of being slowly outmanoeuvred by a religious fanatic
- Lyanna Mormont of Bear Island. That was cool, and this time I can't criticise the show for not thinking to introduce this character far earlier. She's 10.
- House Stark being reminded of its failings. I mean, Rob was a relatively good person, and the Red Wedding was played as tragic, but it's fair to say Rob made strategic errors and he at least should have prepared better for the possible repercussions. He was ultimately still too much like his father
- Yarra and Theon. I like these two. I put Theon second after Sansa as a character who started out not overly sympathetic but now we care about because of what we witnessed them go through and their development in response to the challenges they faced. [Both of them also had fairly realistic challenges and encounters, in that they didn't involve dragons or white walkers, or visions of destiny or magical intervention. What they went through was basically something a person in our world could have gone through.] Thank goodness that they're doing the sensible thing in reaction to what their asshole uncle did last episode, and heading to Slaver's Bay to try and work with Daenerys first
- [Arya. How did Arya not see that coming? Could you have got a more obvious disguise than a sweet old lady? She must have known that the Waif was after her. This was poorly constructed. It would have worked better if she spent a few moments avoiding every possible candidate for the Waif, only to be attacked by someone even she couldn't foresee, such as the ship captain]
- EDIT 8 June: Okay after discussing this, I realise I'm probably being a dumbass, and it probably isn't poorly constructed, and I fell for a set-up for some twist. Either:...
- The Now You See Me twist: Arya was expecting the Waif to come after her using the old lady mask, used blood pack from the theatre, pretended to walk the street nearly dying. All to lure the Waif into her hiding place where she will kill her with Needle (Waif not realising that Arya's at full capacity). Typing that out, it sounds extraordinarily elaborate and far fetched. Still more believable than Arya falling for 'sweet old lady' disguise
- The Fight Club twist: Arya saw and touched the 'sweet old lady' mask in the House of Black and White and then attacked herself as that mask and something something something. It's all explained in the link. I'm now leaning towards the Fight Club twist but hope I'm wrong as, well, it really is just like Fight Club.
- [Hound's back one episode and he's already been given cause for revenge. I don't have supernatural powers like Bran, but I see a future involving axe murders.]
Overall, this episode and last episode - which Beyond the Thrones noted didn't feature anyone dying -were very much based on development without much pay-off. This is not a bad thing, and perhaps puts paid to my concerns expressed in my last GoT blog.
That said, with three episodes left, pay-off is coming.
That said, with three episodes left, pay-off is coming.
Sunday, 5 June 2016
Background violence
Film studio 20th Century Fox came in for some criticism over their decision to use a poster showing comic book character Mystique being held by the throat to promote X-Men: Apocalypse.
Former Collider and AMC Movie Talk host & producer and general movie commentator John Campea posted a defence of Fox's decision and a sometimes petty counterargument to the criticisms of Rose McGowan.
John's counterargument is basically a straw-man. Rose McGowan was pretty clear that it was the use of the image as an advertisement, specifically a billboard poster, that was the issue. She wasn't criticising the movie for featuring a female character being held by the throat by a villainous male character.
"Speaking to the Hollywood Reporter, she elaborated on her frustration, saying: 'There is a major problem when the men and women at 20th Century Fox think casual violence against women is the way to market a film. There is no context in the ad, just a woman getting strangled."
John counters Rose by talking about the meaning and symbolism of the imagery and similar imagery in other media, and in particular other films, such as the introduction to Darth Vader in Star Wars (now known also as episode 4, A New Hope).
Everything he says about how that image is a visual cue that presents a certain kind of power, and in particular dominance, is basically correct; as is his claim that portraying such actions does not mean in and of itself that the imagery is intended to condone that particular use of violence.
Except of course the 1977 Star Wars marketing didn't predominantly include posters of Darth Vader throttling some helpless rebel. And if it had, that would have been weird.
The choice that Rose McGowan and others are criticising here isn't to feature a scene in a film whereby a villainous character holds a female character by the throat at some point in the story. Yet that's essentially what John is countering with his examples.
As Rose McGowan and plenty of the Tweeters who criticised the poster said, it was the strange decision to select that image as a representative image of the film in order to sell it to the wider public who would view it while going about their day that was the issue. To make that a public image in that way was a bizarre call by Fox: 'Hey come see our latest superhero action-fantasy film, it features a woman being strangled by a bully - you'll love it!'
Allan Shifman put it well in his tweet: "This #XMenApocalypse billboard of Oscar Isaac choking Jennifer Lawrence is a pleasant backdrop for a date night."
(To be fair to Fox, they have apologised and withdrawn the poster.)
Rose went on to refer to an anecdote about the reaction of a 9-year-old: "Rose noted that her friend had been talking to his nine-year-old daughter about the poster when she asked: 'Dad, why is that monster man committing violence against a woman?'"
John completely ignores Rose's key point about context. That is, the poster has none. The X-Men films are popular, but large portions of the public who see the billboards will not necessarily be familiar with the nature of the characters or the X-Men story. To them, they are like the young girl, wondering why an image of a man treating a woman terribly is the wallpaper to their day out walking, shopping, eating, playing.
Former Collider and AMC Movie Talk host & producer and general movie commentator John Campea posted a defence of Fox's decision and a sometimes petty counterargument to the criticisms of Rose McGowan.
John's counterargument is basically a straw-man. Rose McGowan was pretty clear that it was the use of the image as an advertisement, specifically a billboard poster, that was the issue. She wasn't criticising the movie for featuring a female character being held by the throat by a villainous male character.
"Speaking to the Hollywood Reporter, she elaborated on her frustration, saying: 'There is a major problem when the men and women at 20th Century Fox think casual violence against women is the way to market a film. There is no context in the ad, just a woman getting strangled."
John counters Rose by talking about the meaning and symbolism of the imagery and similar imagery in other media, and in particular other films, such as the introduction to Darth Vader in Star Wars (now known also as episode 4, A New Hope).
Everything he says about how that image is a visual cue that presents a certain kind of power, and in particular dominance, is basically correct; as is his claim that portraying such actions does not mean in and of itself that the imagery is intended to condone that particular use of violence.
Except of course the 1977 Star Wars marketing didn't predominantly include posters of Darth Vader throttling some helpless rebel. And if it had, that would have been weird.
The choice that Rose McGowan and others are criticising here isn't to feature a scene in a film whereby a villainous character holds a female character by the throat at some point in the story. Yet that's essentially what John is countering with his examples.
As Rose McGowan and plenty of the Tweeters who criticised the poster said, it was the strange decision to select that image as a representative image of the film in order to sell it to the wider public who would view it while going about their day that was the issue. To make that a public image in that way was a bizarre call by Fox: 'Hey come see our latest superhero action-fantasy film, it features a woman being strangled by a bully - you'll love it!'
Allan Shifman put it well in his tweet: "This #XMenApocalypse billboard of Oscar Isaac choking Jennifer Lawrence is a pleasant backdrop for a date night."
(To be fair to Fox, they have apologised and withdrawn the poster.)
Rose went on to refer to an anecdote about the reaction of a 9-year-old: "Rose noted that her friend had been talking to his nine-year-old daughter about the poster when she asked: 'Dad, why is that monster man committing violence against a woman?'"
John completely ignores Rose's key point about context. That is, the poster has none. The X-Men films are popular, but large portions of the public who see the billboards will not necessarily be familiar with the nature of the characters or the X-Men story. To them, they are like the young girl, wondering why an image of a man treating a woman terribly is the wallpaper to their day out walking, shopping, eating, playing.
Wednesday, 1 June 2016
The scientifically proven All Time Best Shows on Television
Okay, just throwing nominations out there at this stage. In alphabetical order:
Blackadder (from 'The Black Adder' to 'Blackadder Goes Forth')
Breaking Bad
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Game of Thrones
The Office (UK)
Scrubs (seasons 1 through 6-ish)
The Simpsons (approximately seasons 1 through 15)
Twin Peaks
The X-Files (first 5 or 6 seasons)
Notes:
Blackadder (from 'The Black Adder' to 'Blackadder Goes Forth')
Breaking Bad
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Game of Thrones
The Office (UK)
Scrubs (seasons 1 through 6-ish)
The Simpsons (approximately seasons 1 through 15)
Twin Peaks
The X-Files (first 5 or 6 seasons)
Notes:
- Honourable mentions: Curb Your Enthusiasm; Freaks and Geeks; Lost (even though season 2 was a waste of time, and the final was ultimately disappointing); Seinfeld; Scooby Doo (well, you know); early South Park
- There are a number of reputedly excellent shows that I haven't seen and therefore can't rate, in particular: Battlestar Galactica (Moore/Eick); The Sopranos; True Detective; The Wire; and I'm sure many others
- Clearly, I'm willing to be a bit selective and try to avoid where a series jumps the shark. I do feel more respect for the series that kept a more or less perfect standard the whole way through (Buffy, Adder, Office, BB)
- Obviously my final view on GoT is to be decided.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)