Game of Thrones: Bad Romance
The author is writing a series while rewatching Game of Thrones. The other installments can be found here, here, here, here, here and here.
When I was a preteen, my dad let me watch a very very very much not ok for kids movie that you’ve probably heard of — The Road Warrior. The reason why he let me do this peculiar thing was because he’d read a review that said “this movie has no sex in it.” After we watched it, including an extremely graphic rape-murder scene, he was like “huh, maybe that review said there was no romance, not no sex.”
And then he shrugged and IDK, probably signed my permission slip so I could go on the school field trip come Monday morning, or maybe he helped my stepmother pack me a nutritionally balanced sack lunch. The two genders, amirite?
Not only is rape not sex, romance is also not sex. Romance and sex often get conflated with each other in people’s mind’s, but when it comes to fiction, they are much further removed from each other than my poor clueless dad realized. Just ask Jane Austen.
This may come as no surprise to some of you, but I consider myself something of a student of romance in fiction. I read it, I write it, and I write about it, not only because I personally enjoy it, but because I think romance is important from a feminist perspective.
Romance is something that is often pooh-poohed by men and written off as “chick lit”, inferior to anything males enjoy. Even some women pooh-pooh the very notion of enjoying romantic scenarios as a sign of patriarchal brainwashing (to whom I heartily state – you do you) — again, a sign of inferiority. Romantic tropes are ignored, subverted, mocked, belittled, and when they are included in a story, it’s often merely as a means to an end, like the old girlfriend in the fridge ploy.
But if you stop to think about romance before decrying it, you may come to the same conclusion I did: human beings put so much time into pursuing love, it’s downright bizarre how easily many folks just write off not only the genre of romance, but even just romantic elements within genres.
Let’s be honest, romance is written off mainly because wimmen like it, and wimmen have cooties, therefore their interests are easy for men, who make most works of entertainment, to ignore. Or as I discussed in my piece Romance Before Bros, dissing romance is not only bizarre, it’s sexist as hell. Sex, on the other hand, is alive and well and crammed into just about everything.
Take, if you will, Exhibit B (for boobs) through T (for tits), otherwise known as Game of Thrones. Game of Thrones is notorious for sexposition (that’s one word, not two, Google with care) in which important information is revealed to the audience against a backdrop of people having sex, because we’re all so dummmm we can’t pay attention to anything that isn’t crammed full of breasts. Makes ya wonder how Abe Lincoln got thru the Gettysburg Address without a topless can-can kick line behind him, doesn’t it?
One of my absolute least favorite moments of Game of Thrones is an utterly ridiculous sexposition scene (and those of you who watched the show will know this scene — everyone else, it’s not appropriate for sharing but I can just about guarantee ya, it’s available online) in which Littlefinger, despite being allegedly crafty and highly secretive, for some reason tells his whole life story while two prostitutes have sex in the background. In his spare time when not inexplicably and uncharacteristically revealing his Machiavellian ways (the first rule of Machiavellian ways, is that you never talk about Machiavellian ways), he criticized their sexual technique.
Reminder, this was in the first season. There were signs we were not in the best of hands right from the jump, peeps. I humbly submit that if you can’t make a pretty damn interesting character’s backstory compelling without resorting to sexposition, you probably shouldn’t be at the helm of a multi-million dollar TV series, but I digress.
Therein lies the rub (er, so to speak). Even though GoT is chock full of sex, the vast majority of that sex isn’t romantic in the slightest. Over eight seasons, we see lots and lots of coitus, and very little of what leads into it, except when it’s rapey, in which case we see what leads into it in exacting detail. Literally no one gets happily married, or even into a loving relationship between equals. Only poor Gilly successfully has a baby, and that baby is her father’s, and that baby is a critically relevant plot point that couldn’t be cut from the story. Because I suspect that if the GoT writers could have cut the squalling brat and replaced it with a heaving bosom, they would have.
Dudes don’t like babies in their sex show! DUH! Doesn’t that strike you as IDK, just a little bit WEIRD? There are roughly 700 characters in Game of Thrones, and a fair number of them are women, yet every marriage ends in disaster, and there are precisely no babies born to any of these horny jerks.
There is no happily ever after for anyone, not even in the form of a subverted trope. Worse still, the handful of pregnant women – Daenerys, Cersei, Robb’s wife Ol’ Whatshername – have insanely horrible things happen to them while they’re in the family way. In fact, my original title for this piece was called “Don’t Be a Cis Woman in Westeros” because pretty much every female character bearing a name who displays even the faintest whiff of classic femininity is raped and/or murdered for her trouble, and then additionally a whole lot of unnamed beskirted characters get it too.
Quick refresher — Dany — raped, has a stillborn baby, and is murdered, Cersei — raped by her own brother and killed while pregnant after all of her kids die, Robb Stark’s wife — gruesomely murdered while pregnant, Sansa — raped, Catelyn — murdered, Shae – murdered, Ygritte – murdered, Missandei – murdered, Melisandre — dries up and blows away, as old women do, Margaery — exploded, Roz — death by crossbow. Even wily crone Olenna Tyrell gets poisoned, and I’m forgetting like twelve other feminine characters here who met grisly ends. Gilly survived by getting into Sam’s good graces, but in the book, she has to give up her baby to do it.
Suffice to say, if you have foofy hair and favor low cut bodices, you are not going to fare well in the Land of Ice and Fire. Only Arya and Brienne — both sporting the unclassic femininity the type the writers at Jezebel love — survive relatively unscathed.
And that’s great if you’re a Grrl-Power type who don’t need no man, but not so much if you’re an irredeemable man lover like me who actually enjoys things like stolen kisses and smoldering glances and happilys-ever-after. I could have even lived without the ever after if I got a few happilys for my gals along the way.
Despite it being the most sexiest show in ever, or whatever, n the Game of Thrones TV show, there was not a single sexual scenario in which a woman got laid and it meant something and her life wasn’t completely destroyed because of it.
Here is where some clever sort of person will come along and say “but they were SUBVERTING the romantic trope in favor of REALISM!” No. No they weren’t. They were eliminating the romantic trope entirely to make way for more Ramsay Bolton torture porn, you-go-girl action scenes, and bare boobied brothel babe action by giving a big ol’ middle finger to women who are so desperate to see women characters in ANYthing that we’re willing to put up with all this shit just in the off chance something a little nice happens for a feminine character along the way.
But nothing ever did. Sorry, but I don’t find the “sure, kid, you got raped, but you learned something along the way, here’s a crown for your trouble” plotline in any way empowering at all. And as for realism, stow it, because as I stated a couple of paragraphs up, it is ridiculously unlikely that in a world in which marriage and producing offspring was super duperly important, that none of these people managed it even one damn time over the course of what appeared to be many years.
Even less realistic is that in a show that was supposed to be sexy, the only women seeming to enjoy sex (after the first season, anyway, and Khal Drogo and Daenerys did not enjoy what I would consider a fairy tale romance) are the whores getting paid for it. Oh, and of course Arya Sue, the character who gets to do everything she ever wanted without any cost for it. No, Brienne getting a pity f–, locker-room-talked-about in a salacious way, and then dumped is not sexy, but thanks for asking.
I’ve talked and talked (and talked, and talked) about what went wrong with the Game of Thrones TV show, and I think one of the main things the show lacked is any sense of a female perspective. While this lack of a woman’s touch shows in many ways, the complete lack of romance is a massive part of it.
Game of Thrones as presented by the horndogs at HBO is not really for me, is it? It is a man’s story, written for men, by men, representing the interests and passions of men. Dudes don’t want babies in their sex show. Ok, sure, I can accept that. But it appears to me that dudes don’t want love in their sex show either, not even a little around the edges, and that, I find I really really do miss. Even Daenerys having some fun with Daario felt a lot more directed for the men in the audience and not me.
Because Dany didn’t love Daario, it didn’t mean anything, and while I did not mind at all seeing Dutch treat Michiel Huisman without a shirt on, it felt cheap instead of hot. Daario is a male slut meant as a wish fulfilment avatar for the men in the crowd, and it didn’t speak to the princess in me.
Look, love matters. Love, in Game of Thrones, is CANON. We’re talking about a plotline that began with Rhaegar Targaryen falling illicitly in love with Lyanna Stark, a faked kidnapping, a secret wedding, and a bouncing baby boy, which registers 9.5 on the Lifetime Movie Romance Richter scale (points deducted for dying in childbirth).
Yet David Benioff and DB Weiss looked at all these characters who could have got with each other in anything other than the most demeaning, horrifying, and perfunctory of ways, and were just like “nah”. Now, you may be wondering why I’m giving George RR a pass here, and it’s because upon rereading the books, I think he may have some romantic tricks up his sleeve yet. Nor did GRRM expend massive amounts of plot time on sexposition and torture porn at the expense of romantic elements. While I admit I did not love the way Georgie Boy wrote a few of his scenes1 he is nowhere near as guilty of overseasoning his fictional stew with sex and underseasoning it with romance as his erstwhile proteges Benioff and Weiss.
That the Game of Thrones TV show completely dispensed with any notions of love or romance or long-term stability in even a single relationship, yet has come to be seen “empowering” despite how completely phallocentric it is, I think, is a damning statement on the lack of choices that women face when it comes to our fiction. We have so few female characters we can truly relate to, that even Game of Thrones appeals, because we’re so desperate to connect with a fictional woman telling some part of a real woman’s experience (even the shittier parts) that we’ll glom onto anything that gives just a taste of what speaks to us, even if it’s otherwise problematic. Seeing women doing anything, anything at all, is better than seeing women doing nothing. But settling for mediocre at best is, well, mediocre at best. Me watching Game of Thrones feels a lot like what being in a loveless marriage must be like – yes, you still have to put on a happy face and act appreciative for the scraps you get thrown, but when it comes to your own needs for affection, closeness, some sort of loving connection, girl, you gonna have to look elsewhere for it.
And now they’re taking the romance out of fiction too. Aside from the pages of a 1983 Danielle Steel novel, is there anyplace a woman can seek refuge, or does everything have to be tailored to male tastes while female ones are ignored completely?
I don’t know, but damn, I hope not.
Sex scenes are like soy sauce. When you need that salty goodness, nothing can replace it. But no one wants soy sauce in a creme brulee. And you for sure can’t count on a heavy application of Kikkoman to make up for other flavors your dish is lacking. I think the reason I am so obsessed with Game of Thrones is because all the ingredients were there. I took a big bite of it, and it was almost heavenly. I wanted to like it, I truly did.
The trouble with the tv adaptation of GoT is that someone used way too much soy sauce when what they needed was whipped cream. It wouldn’t have taken much, but a little more romance really would have made the final dish a lot more palatable.
Sex is good. I like sex. But sex without love leaves me cold, even in fiction. You can’t have a land of ice and fire with no fire.
- I don’t want to belabor this point because GRRM sometimes takes undeserved heat for choices Benioff and Weiss made, dude has a bit of an issue making extremely young girls be more sexually forward than is remotely plausible. Most famously, Benioff and Weiss changed Daenerys’ wedding night from ridiculously consensual to non-consensual, and though that was a very raw and shocking scene, I think they made the right call on that (if perhaps for the wrong reasons). Sansa and Tyrion’s wedding night was also rightfully cleaned up for TV. I understand the sequence in the book was meant to be disturbing, but the out-of-character bold behavior from a scared little girl was upsetting enough to make me physically ill after I read it.
Another good piece Kristin, and I must say I’m finding these very interesting even as someone who did not watch or read GoT.
You touch on one of my pet peeves, which is faux realism in place of real realism for the sake of exploitative cruelty. To the extent Westeros is a stand-in for medieval Europe the sexual practices and mores are ridiculously off. There are numerous reasons that a pre-contraception, pre-modern medicine, and pre-sexual revolution society could not look like Skinamax. Making it so is the height of unreality. To be ‘realistic’ I think you end up with something closer to Paul Verhoeven’s Flesh and Blood, not that I think that would satisfy anyone’s romantic cravings. There are also some interesting and comedic meditations on where women fit in that kind of world in a book I read called the Sot-Weed Factor which takes place in 17th century colonial America, though not sure it would be your thing.
I also have noticed a tendency in modern fiction to punish a certain type of traditional female character and uncritically celebrate a shallower girl power archetype. I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with this but it’s hard not to get the impression that makers of pop culture have traded one set of constraints for another. There certainly isn’t much room in that for something complex and hard to do well on screen like romance, particularly when we’re in the land of big budget spectacle. I’m sure there’s a great essay somewhere in all this on how these things reflect our cultural schizophrenia right back at us.Report
Thank you! I have basically used the “Game of Thrones” theme as an excuse to talk about several things in my writing notebook anyway (including the constraints inflicted by the girl power archetype, which I find very limiting and misogynistic) that didn’t feel “big” enough for their own post. It was my hope that people who haven’t read the books could appreciate them on their own merits.
I completely agree with your point about the faux realism to excuse cruelty, and that it’s our mores that are reflected in GoT not medieval ones. For instance, two of the main characters in GoT are disfigured and experience a lot of angst over it, but the truth is in that world tons of people would be walking around with terrible scars and it probably would not even have been particularly remarked upon – both of them were still accomplished people in their own ways and would have been considered one of society’s winners, so this notion that they were perpetual outsiders never quite played for me. And then one of the (female) characters’ virginity is treated as a joke or an affliction that she needed to rid herself of. That would NEVER have happened in medieval times!! Unmarried women were supposed to be virgins, and she would have been seen as moral and desirable for that.
So the “realism” goes precisely as far as (as you say perfectly) our cultural schizophrenia allows, and any claims towards “realism” are silly.
Thank you for both those recommendations, I find them both very appealing.
And thanks for reading!Report
I’ll second IMDB. I don’t watch GOT, don’t care to, and I have no problem with girl power and kick ass chicks owning the dudes. I just realize that it’s in now way REALITY. We talked about this in John Wick 2 where the female bodyguard of the bad guy fighting John Wick in the “hall of mirrors” is out of ammo, and uses what she has (flexibility, surprise, and a knife) to try to kill him. She knew it was unlikely but that was her job. Wick had 50+ pounds on her and odds are she was gonna die…and she did. Other than a few outliers, that’s always going to be the case.
So, an occasional kick ass chick is kinda refreshing but when it’s the norm, i’m like “yeah, not believable….gonna go play witcher 3”Report
Yeah I wouldn’t have minded at all if it was occasional, it was that the writers skipped over more interesting themes and characters in favor of girl power, while simultaneously being in most ways very much not empowering.
It was enough to give you whiplash at times.Report
This is was before movies, amusement parks, miniature golf, wine bars, and fine dining establishments so of course romance was bad. Hard to have good romance with limited dating options. You can only take your girl to the siege or the pillage so many times.Report
Of *COURSE* you can!
All you need to do is have her parents say “you can’t date him!” and his parents say “you can’t date her!” and, suddenly, a short conversation in the apple orchard becomes an epic date. The first time you get away with touching pinkies surreptitiously as you walk through the market?
The Fantasticks was all about this.Report
Way to ruin the joke.Report
I’m glad I didn’t post the version of the comment that opened with “check your privilege!”, then.Report
And after the third time you have to explain “no no honey it’s pillage then burn, pillage THEN burn” you start wondering whether she’s just getting it wrong on purpose so you’ll stop dragging her along…Report
“Where do you want to eat, honey?”
“I don’t know, YOU pick?” Ten minutes later: ‘Uggh, stuffed dormice AGAIN?”Report
Great piece. It’s kind of funny that people say, “Well, it’s REALISTIC! There wasn’t romance in medieval times!” Which is both BS and ignores the fact that … this is fantasy series. So killing ice dragons is OK but having even a basic courtship is not?
There’s a larger point here too which is the lack of joy in GoT. The only time people get something that makes them happy involves either sex or killing. One of the few great scenes in season 8 was when Brienne was knighted. It was like, “Oh, someone good happened to someone besides killing a person they hated!”Report
Yeah, anyone who says “there was no romance in medieval times” does not know much about medieval times. Romance as a literary genre was in fact enormously popular at the time (which George RR represents in the books by having the genre also popular in Westeros) . Now, did it look like a Harlequin, of course not, but the notion that romantic love was Not Actually A Thing is just completely untrue. Let alone the dragon end of things.
As I see your word “joy” there I realize I am using “romance” as a code word for a lot of positive emotions and joy is definitely one of them. One of the reasons why the Red Wedding hits so incredibly hard is that it’s a moment of joy turned into a moment of utter despair. Same with Jon having to betray Ygritte and then her dying – you could just FEEL the loss there.
In the later seasons, all there is is despair, and so it’s hard to care very much. “Oh, you’re miserable?? How is that any different from how you felt last episode?”Report
Oh and BTW, seconded about Brienne. That was one moment that did hit me hard.Report
tangent:
One of the things that’s really disappointing about GoT having such a rotten ending is that there was a whole ’80s canon of Romantic Fantasy that was begging to be turned into Prestige TV, and now that’s just not gonna happen, because GoT died in the ass.
Like, Tarma and Kethry? Darkmage? The Deed of Paksennarion? The Steerswoman? Pern, they could have got a dozen seasons out of Dragonriders alone! All strongly-plotted female-fronted (and female-written) long-running series that could practically be filmed right off the page, and we’re not gonna get them now, because everyone’s gonna say “oh, well, GoT flopped, so, nope”…Report
Agree 1000000%. This should have been the fantasy genre coming into its own, instead it died on the vine. It’s a pity because it has everything people like about superheroes and then its own unique set of narrative strengths, and really could have been something special (and lucrative!).
Interestingly, Netflix is replete with girl-power teenybopper fantasy shows that are basically unwatchable.Report
||Interestingly, Netflix is replete with girl-power teenybopper fantasy shows that are basically unwatchable.
And “Cuties”.Report
Revisiting this comment a month later and I’ve actually tried to watch a few of these – basically unwatchable is putting it nicely!Report
I find it interesting that GOT happened, and Pern didn’t. Tons of material, and it’s all complete, and we easily have the tech to do it (if Dany can ride a dragon, we can have Lessa riding a dragon).Report
Okay. So let’s talk about the sex for a minute.
I have not seen the show.
Here is my question: What percentage of the sex scenes could be replaced with a card that read “and then they had sex” with no loss of fidelity of storytelling?
I mean, if a movie had a card that said “and then the hero beat up the villain”, I could see being upset that we cut immediately to the hero still standing while the villain is down on the ground.
It could be a comedy bit, even. “I can’t believe you jumped to that rock, did a spinning backflip, and then kicked him in the face! That was awesome!” “Well, I’ve worked years to become this acrobatic.”
But, for the most part, I’d rather see the fight scene.
When it comes to sex scenes, the majority of them could be replaced with a card that said “and then they had sex”.
I mean, sure. There are benefits that come from seeing bodacious ta-tas. For those who prefer the male lead, perhaps they will see a particularly happening backside. BAM! The audience could yell. WUBBADA!!!
But beyond the titillating, I rarely see a story *ADVANCED* through anything that happens with a sex scene.
Which brings me to the question: did the sex scenes in Game of Thrones advance the story? Or could they have easily been replaced with a card that said “and then they had sex”?Report
In fairness to GoT it was absolutely egregious in season 1 when the show makers felt a strong fear about drawing in audience attention and then trended sharply downward from there. That being sex as the sexplanation scenes declined alternative forms of porn presented and grew. The entire character of Ramsay Bolton was basically a long running, thinly veiled snuff scene.Report
Well, I remember Schilling telling me about one of the scenes in the first book that they re-did for the show and, in the book, it was a bunch of people sitting around a fire and telling a story and, in the show, it was a bunch of people sitting around a fire and telling a story and chicks were in the background showing off boobage.
Which isn’t exactly what I’m talking about. I mean, you could have the big boss talking to the heavy and they have a conversation about some dastardly deed. You could put it in a bar in a booth in the back and communicate that they have enough stroke to feel safe talking about that in a bar. You can put it in the back part of a restaurant and you can establish that they’ve got plenty of businesses and this restaurant is one of them. You can put it in a topless joint and demonstrate that they are in a place designed to have men look at women as objects and these two guys don’t even care that they’re in a place designed to have men look at women as objects. They’re talking about the job and they’re not even looking at the dancers!
So you can put boobs in a scene and have it be vaguely meaningful to establishing characters. In theory. I mean, sure, you’re getting the ‘R’ and if that’s the goal then that’s also a goal. But, if done right, it can establish a character.
When it comes to The Deed? There are only a handful of scenes involving sex that have advanced a story more than a card that read “and then sex” and the majority of them that come to mind are morally abhorrent (Rob Roy is first to come to mind as a scene that advanced the story more than a card would have… I’m not inclined to try to think of others).Report
There’s a critically important (and awful) sex scene in the critically praised (and awful) “Out of Africa”.
There’s a lot of sex in (the 2016 Korean film) “The Handmaiden,” and it’s all pretty critical.
Mostly, though, I’m thinking of B-movies. Things like “The Howling” or “Cannibal Holocaust” or “Humanoids from the Deep,” where (as Joe Bob would say) it’s absolutely essential to the plot.Report
Dana Stevens reviewed “Lust, Caution” for Slate back in 2007.
Here’s the part of the review that stuck with me:
I still haven’t seen the movie but: dang.Report
I haven’t seen that but YES. That’s exactly how “Handmaiden” plays out.
Guaran-damn-teed “Lust, Caution” was an influence.Report
The sex scene in Coming Home is both necessary and culturally important, without being abhorrent. That’s one that always comes to mind when this subject comes up. “See, this one time they actually did it right!”
Do you think it’s the nature of the scenes themselves or the way we are using them in the here and now?Report
I often wonder, if not for the Hay’s Office, would Hollywood’s Golden Age been able to broach the subject of sex in a way that was less trashy than the the post-studio-era boomers ultimately handled it?
Maybe. But then I think of how incredibly hot those movies were with the restraints on, and I’m okay with how it worked out. We watched this silly little Gary Cooper/Merle Oberon picture, “The Cowboy and the Lady” and there’s a scene on a boat where they HAVE to get married because of what Coop plans to do with her before the trip is over.
*phew*Report
That is an intriguing notion. As I watch older movies I honestly think we lost out on so much wisdom about a lot of subjects in the rush to encapsulate the Sexual Revolution on film, and I hope it isn’t completely lost forever.
Aside, something very interesting I have long meant to explore in a piece is my lifelong adoration for plots where two people have to get married on some flimsy pretense (just as you’re describing there) and then end up falling in love after the fact. For reasons I can only guess at, I adore that plot whenever I encounter it.
The most interesting part of it is my daughter, who is a much more protected child than I was and has never read or seen anything involving that plotline, started writing her own books lately and she played that card right from the very start!! I couldn’t believe it.Report
Oh, kids are so great creatively. They don’t know what they’re not “supposed” to do and end up with just amazing things.
Also, if they don’t go to school (and aren’t indoctrinated by YouTube, et al) they seem to evolve a kind of tolerant arch-conservatism, but I digress.
That is a great plot element and an =important= one. Because it’s a very common story and it shows the agency in romantic love. (I think it was Fromm who pointed out that if you “fall” in love, your claim that you’ll love someone forever is baseless, since you have no agency in it.)Report
Well, part of it is the whole cartoony aspect of depicting it.
When two people who are not in a movie kiss, they can do the thing where they just go for it. Follow the rules of the road, tilt to the right, OH NO THEY’RE FROM ENGLAND and mash their noses together, that’s alright.
When two people who are in a movie kiss, they’re no longer going head on but at a slight angle from true. You need more lip topology in the shot!
So, too, for acts more intimate than that.
A movie scene will probably want to, erm, take advantage of… erm. Well, given the goals of the scene, director, story, expectations of the audience, and so on… well, you can’t have the actors just go head on. There are topological elements that you will want to obscure (or show, I guess) to the audience.
While people in their own bedroom without a camera do not have to take these things into consideration.
Using the old formula “acting is acting like you’re not acting”, when applied to these scenes gets you people acting like they’re not acting even as they are at an oblique angle to each other, holding their arms like *THIS* instead of, you know, comfortably.
And so even as no one would ever put their arm *THERE* because it’s so awkward, well… the cinematographer has a goal. And the goal of the cinematographer is not what two people would do in the same situation and so the characters are stuck doing stuff that no two people would do.
And that artifice gets in the way.
There. That’s my attempt at being tasteful.Report
I would pay $50 for “Jaybird Tastefully Describes Boning” as read by Hugh Grant.Report
I had to go back and reread this in Hugh Grant’s voice!Report
Well done, message imparted, and in good taste! 🙂Report
Well put.Report
Far be it for me to come riding to the aid of sex scenes but I DO think there are legit uses for them (and I get that’s not what you’re saying at all). I mean, it’s such a huge portion of human existence surely it bears exploration just as much as other elements of life do. I wouldn’t want to forgo them in my toolbox, even though I don’t use them much.
It’s just that we’ve stopped using them in any insightful way and most creators go for the Wubbadda!
There are so many outstanding movies from the 60’s and 70’s that have sex scenes that accomplish something, I hate to write them off (and again, I know what you’re saying is NOT THAT)
I honestly find myself equally bored with cookie cutter fight scenes that aren’t interestingly choreographed and could be as you say, replaced with a card that reads “and then they fought!”Report
I’m so glad I stopped watching this show. I think it was the last regular series I tried to watch. I dropped out when they burned the little girl. (And you knew from, like, Season 1, that what’s-his-name was going to have to do it, to sacrifice the only thing that he loved and that made him human, and then when it finally happened, it all felt so phoned in. I thought to myself, “You’re just trying to shock me. You don’t really give a crap about any of these characters.”) I watch some grisly stuff. But I don’t find rape (or child murder) entertaining.
Good piece, as always. I’ve skipped too many of your essays because I don’t care about GoT, but you’ve been known to pull me back in more than once. (Just when I got back out, usually.)
So vis-a-vis the larger point of romance being for women and not welcome in dick flicks, I say, pish-tosh. Pish-tosh, I say! (“Dick flicks” comes from my late friend, Mary Ann Madden, who said if there were “chick flicks”, there must be…)
“Casablanca” literally doesn’t exist without the romance part. I’d be hard pressed to think of great film noir where romance wasn’t a powerful part. Humphrey Bogart says he’s going to WAIT FOR Mary Astor until she gets out of prison in 10-20 years! C’mon! How romantic is that? I guess when you get into Spillane (e.g. Kiss Me Deadly) it gets a lot less romantic.
But “Die Hard” also doesn’t exist without romance. And, let’s ignore all 47 of the sequels and pretend that Holly & John have their HEA. You think calling “Die Hard” a Christmas movie is revisionist? Any thought that H&J didn’t work things out would’ve been blasphemy in 1989.
I look at all this promotion of sexual perversion (of which the elimination of romance from male/female relationships absolutely is) from the viewpoint that TPTB are neo-Malthusians and anything they can do to discourage reproduction, they will.Report
BLAKE! I missed you, buddy! Hope you’re well.
Most of these I am writing on general subjects and using GoT as a springboard for that. I don’t think you need to have watched the show to appreciate most of them but don’t worry, I’m coming to the end of it now LOL.
I guess where we’re diverging here is that I don’t consider Casablanca a “dick flick”. There are tons of movies from a male perspective, male viewpoint that are speaking to MORE than just the lowest common denominator as it sits here in the 2000’s. (including the book version of GoT). But over time the vast majority of narrative storytelling has degraded into this dichotomy where there’s Captain Marvel for women, and Game of Thrones type stuff for men, and I’m not seeing anything even remotely LIKE Casablanca being made (or at the least, entering the public consciousness in the way that GoT did at first.)
And as to your last point which is decidedly a controversial one round these here parts, I couldn’t agree more.Report
Missed you, too, Atomic.
“Casablanca” isn’t the best example, though if it weren’t The Greatest Movie Of All Time™️, it’d be a fairly typical war/spy/gangster B-movie, and it got me thinking about noir, which =I think= skews male and at the same time very frequently has romance central to it.
“Double Indemnity” doesn’t exist without the romance element. (Take the romance trope “does s/he love me?” and add “and is s/he going to kill me?”) I mentioned “Maltese Falcon”, already. But there’s also “Laura”—he falls in love with the dead woman. (Which is not so impressive considering I fall in love with Gene Tierney every time I see her, too.)
#3 child is on a Western kick, and I ended up putting together a short list of more female tilting Westerns (https://moviegique.com/2021/02/westerns-for-the-fillies/) but the truth is romance is a huge part of most great Westerns, even though the genre as a whole is masculine.
You might say, well, women like those genres, too, and I couldn’t agree more. Because movie studios used to want to attract as many people as possible! And I think there was some artistic pride in making a film that everyone loved. (We love this trailer for “Miracle on 34th Street”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUwyGo6PQzY which kind of illustrates the point.)
But as usual, we don’t diverge THAT much: Your point about storytelling degrading is spot on, and I’m painfully conscious of the fact that my examples are all 60+ years old. (“Art forms peak early,” saith #3.) Watching even lesser old Westerns really brings home why we’ve been watching all these Korean and Chinese movies: They don’t make you feel bad, they don’t degrade you, they really just want you to be entertained, and their primary messages are simple ones (even if delivered in complex ways): Be kind to others, be proud of who you are, love and romance and family are the building blocks of life, etc.
And they’re aimed at as broad a demo as possible, which is something aggressively shunned in Hollywood today, and then complained about. (*kaff* Captain Marvel)Report
I agree to the nth degree with every word! Can’t add anything, beautifully said. And thanks for the “Fillies” article, I love it!Report
Wait, the Mary Ann Madden?? Was every conversation with her littered with puns and wordplay, or did she keep that for her contests?Report
She was a modern day Dorothy Parker.
Srsly, tho’, she was a fine conversationalist, and a kind person, though one who did not suffer fools lightly. By the time I “met” her, she had been online for over a decade (due to a recurring cancer), and I took a lot from her about how to behave in chats. If the world had taken those cues, the ‘net would be a much better place.Report
I got some interesting and IMO undeserved pushback on this article, and I did a more in depth exploration of the reasons why on my blog: https://atomicfeminist.com/2021/02/25/but-men-suffer-too-tho/Report
and then a followup to that followup here: https://atomicfeminist.com/2021/03/07/i-like-to-watch/Report