Read the next entry in this series here.
3.2 “Dark Wings, Dark
Words”
Written by Vanessa
TaylorDirected by Daniel Minahan
Commentary by Jack Gleeson (Joffrey), Natalie Dormer (Margaery), Vanessa Taylor, and Daniel Minahan
Here’s a new twist—I have almost nothing to say about this
episode. For all the stuff that happened, for all the introductions and
reappearances of really great characters, this episode was . . . boring. It had
a couple of great moments, but didn’t feel like it hung together at all well.
Some of that might be because it ended up with a bunch of scenes that were
originally written for 3.1, and because the scenes were pretty seriously
rearranged in editing.
This doesn’t mean y’all get out of listening to my opinions
on some of this episode. There’s three things in particular I really want to
get to.
The first is Joffrey and Margaery. A side effect of aging
Margaery up is giving her a greater role in the politics involved in the
Tyrell-Lannister alliance marriage. She’s old enough to understand the stakes
and to be actively involved in getting Joffrey on her side. This new Margaery
is incredibly politically astute and figures out exactly the right way to get
everyone on her side (except Cersei). She figures out pretty quickly exactly
what Joffrey’s passion is (killing things) and uses it to begin a long-game
kind of seduction. I enjoy this Margaery; later they turn her into a catty mean
girl (not to mention a child molester, but we’ll get to that when we get to
that). It’s easy to believe that at this point in the show, she truly enjoys
Sansa’s company and helping the poor, even if these things are also politically
expedient. I really enjoy Natalie Dormer and I like that, if they had to age
Margaery up that far, they got Dormer to play her. She does carry some baggage,
coming from playing Anne Boleyn on The
Tudors, but that particular kind of actor baggage can sometimes be
beneficial (there’s whole studies on the effect of fans following an actor from
one show to another and the residue of the first character hanging on the
actor. Nathan Fillion comes immediately to mind).
You knew we were going to have to talk about Theon. The show
takes a wild departure from the books by actually showing his ordeal onscreen.
In the books, he disappears for a while and we get only hints that he’s even
still alive. When we see him again, he’s a broken shell of a man. Martin uses
that gap to create shock value—from the strong, stubborn, kind of asshole of a
man Theon was, to the groveling, terrified, white-haired Reek. The show decides
to go for the more obvious and basic shock, showing us “medieval” torture. I
seem to remember some discussion that just losing Alfie Allen for a season wasn’t
something the showrunners wanted to do, but that argument falls apart when they
lose Isaac Hempstead Wright for a season later (probably because his storyline isn’t interesting,
violent, and sexy. It’s just traveling and character development). Personally,
I think Martin’s approach was better; it kept some suspense going and showing
the end result of all that torture without showing the process had a much
greater impact (in my opinion) than actually showing it.
The entire reason they showed us Theon’s torture seems to be
that they wanted the violence and the shock value. Vanessa Taylor says that she
suggested maybe not torturing Theon quite so much, and says that David
(Benioff) and Dan (Weiss) “didn’t go for that.” She, of course, went looking
for “authentic” medieval torture devices and came up with the instep borer,
which she found on an unnamed “medieval torture website.” Many people, more
informed than me, have done a lot of work on the realities of “medieval torture”
and how overblown it is in the modern imagination and how a lot of the torture devices ascribed to
the Middle Ages were actually entirely made up in the Victorian era and later,
so I’m not going to go into that here, but this is a way that the show falls
into at least one of the common traps of medievalist thinking about the Middle
Ages.
Bonus: let’s talk about that scene with Catelyn talking to
Talisa about Jon Snow. This, again, ignores a whole lot of political stuff in
favor of defining Catelyn entirely as a woman and a mother. Sure, she’s worried
about Bran and Rickon (it’s worth mentioning that by this point in the books,
she already “knew” they were dead). But she decides to beat herself up for not
being able to love Jon Snow because she was so jealous of the “other woman.”
This goes radically contrary to her characterization in the books and to the
realities of illegitimate children in a patriarchal society that practices
primogeniture. Catelyn’s real problem with Jon is that he’s a danger to her own
son’s right to inherit Winterfell from Ned, because Jon is technically older
than Robb. She would never have even considered having Ned legitimize Jon because
that would mean Robb wouldn’t inherit. In fact, when Robb brings it up so that
if something happens to him, Winterfell would still have a Stark to inherit,
Cat argues strenuously, even though at that point she “knows” Bran and Rickon
are dead, and Robb’s death would leave only Sansa and Arya as possible heirs. While
in the north, either one of them could become Lady of Winterfell, Cat was raised
in the south, where women are valued far less, especially as leaders.
I’ll have much more to say about inheritance and legitimacy
when we get to the end of season six, and I’m sure I’ll have much stronger
language to say it with.
RIP: Hoster Tully (off screen)
Next week: Daenerys makes a deal. Craster is an ass (again).
The Blackfish makes his grand entrance.
Who tries to "get out" of reading these?
ReplyDeleteI like that you mention the overdetermination of views of the medieval by the Victorians. I think there is a lot to say on the topic in that regard, and I look forward to teasing it out with you and with others.