[ad_1]
The finals, traditionally, take place when TV shows show their cards, or at least compel viewers to internalize what may have been apparent for some time. Mad Men it was not an overwhelming accusation of capitalism; it is a fairly serious account of a man's capacity to be realized within him. The Sopranos was not your mother's gangster story; it was extremely ambiguous until the end, preventing even the catharsis of a shootout. Television is a media defined by its possibilities, allowing the greatest number to be open as long as possible in the quest for a show to maintain itself. The work of the finale is to exclude these possibilities forever, transforming a dynamic story into a frozen object.
The conclusion is risky, but in the case of Game of thrones, it was also tempting. Just days before the last episode of Sunday, it was still reasonable to ask exactly what this story about power, inheritance, justice and governance was trying to say about any of these things. With Daenerys Targaryen, a confirmed despot, if not convincing, would The Thrones to double the futility of building a better world? Or would he go in the opposite direction, contradicting many of his early lessons on the limits of idealism by echoing Jon's recent approval by Varys? Until the last moment, The Thrones played with both extremes: the relentless cynicism with which he always flirted and the conventional heroism that he had once avoided.
In the end, the show landed somewhere in the middle. The most complete dish of the "Iron Throne", written and directed by the animators David Benioff and D.B. Weiss, is this The Thrones was the saga of the Starks all along. The name of the giant wolf is now flying around the world, from the headquarters of Bran the Broken at King's Landing to the independent queen of Sansa in the North, to Jon's happy exile beyond the Wall and Arya's travels West. The series ends with a montage of brothers and sisters who embark on their respective journeys, their unimaginable pain happily transmuted to new beginnings well deserved. Game of thrones built a sequel on his epic reach, yet he came out the most intimate and sympathetic pathos of family dramas, as This is us with genocide and CGI.
But "The Iron Throne" also offered firmer verdicts on The Thrones'More abstract ideas. The Starks may have had the last narrative word. The theme, however, fell on Tyrion Lannister – unsurprisingly, given his close ties to the series' more conceptual series. It was the Imp who proposed the system of government that would replace the iron throne, melted in a useful and symbolic way by Drogon to avenge the death of his mother, made crazy and eventually killed because of his desire. Westeros, less north, will have more dynasties; in their place, a council of nobles and women will choose the one who is best able to do so, starting with Bran. "What unites people? Armies? Gold? Flags? Tyrion asked rhetorically. His answer: "Stories. There is nothing more powerful in the world than a good story. Nothing can stop it. No enemy can defeat him. And who has a better story than Bran the Broken? The boy who fell from a high tower and lived? "
Considering how long the previous seasons of The Thrones dedicated to influential people seeking to defend their personal interests to the detriment of the common good, the idea that one can even trust future lords and ladies to support the best candidate is more than a little devoid of character. For the most part, however, this political vision fits quite well. This is not democracy, a concept invented from scratch by Samwell Tarly and bursting with laughter in a few minutes. But it is more democratic than what preceded or what could come from Dany using the means of his oppressors to replace the world order with one and the same principle. Game of thrones is neither nihilist, but incrementalist. And its version of a fairy tale end involves a little bickering board about the boats.
Finally, The Thrones hit on a conclusion that was consistent with his basic identity. Unfortunately, finals are never alone. Television shows are cumulative and their highlights can not be separated from the relatively banal route that makes them possible. Many criticized late The Thrones to cut the corners on the way to its final phase. In theory, "The Iron Throne" offered the opportunity to justify this frantic pace. In practice, he has demonstrated the cost. Many developments in "The Iron Throne" have landed. They could simply have landed much deeper if they had been preceded by a more meticulous installation.
Take the crucial confrontation between Daenerys and Jon Snow. Ironically, eliminating a Targaryen conqueror and the power seat of his house is exactly the kind of killer that Dany claimed to always want. It's a poetic ending to his story and a sharp illustration of The Thrones" distrust of the corrupting influence of power. But the character's decision to slaughter thousands of people, which ultimately prompted Jon to kill her, was never opposed to the principled, politically conscious person we knew until a few episodes ago. Neither the romance between her and Jon has ever had time to develop. Therefore, his disappearance is both overdetermined and underdeveloped: readable on the whole, disjointed in the narration at every moment.
Tyrion and his master plan for the kingdom suffered in the same way. Once, and apparently still, the soul of the series, Tyrion has been manhandled over the past five seasons. His character was perhaps motivated by the need to make Dany's victory less than inevitable, but he has not been allowed to pose as a true voice of reason for centuries, thus making his sudden return to the post other characters – unconvincing. Why does this group of people suddenly hear a man no doubt responsible for the destruction of a city, not to mention the death of a dragon and the loss of several battles? Why would they trust him to run a country, based on little more than Bran's approval? Speaking of Bran: Is it really a wise choice to govern humanity, considering that it is no longer quite a man? What presents itself as a redemption reads rather like a spontaneous reversal, less based on the events of the "throne of iron" than what preceded them.
Otherwise, healthy results compromised by disordered preambles only proliferate from there. What does Jon's return to the North mean, since the show did not bother to determine the position of free people after the fall of the Wall? Who is the "new prince of Dorne", besides a warm body that contributes to the new sense of unity of the Six Kingdoms? Have we ever seen Arya be an explorer to explore well-being, as opposed to a way to find her family? The problem of valuing the results in relation to the process lies in the fact that this process informs the results, especially for a show as obsessed with minutia as possible. The thrones.
Many of the "Iron Throne" was authentically satisfying. Seeing Sansa as the Queen of the North was a balm, just like that of Tyrion and Bronn interacting like real peers, not like colleagues or opponents. Much, however, visibly constrained to satisfy, an instinct that seems antithetical to The Thrones'In the old days. The effort might also have been useless, if earlier payments had more organically facilitated what the "iron throne" had to push. Ironically, The Thrones" rushing to the finish line made the finish less interesting.
Disclosure: HBO is an initial investor in Game of thrones.
[ad_2]
Source link