In the show’s universe, the speech should have been greeted with as much laughter as Sam’s attempt to invent democracy. He makes a speech about Bran’s magical powers, which no one really understands, and suggests that Bran’s command of narrative means that he should be entrusted with near-absolute power. He suggests that Bran Stark, an unknown to most of Westeros’ nobility, should be king. What happens instead? They decide to elect a king out of the blue, seemingly just because Tyrion suggests it. These conflicting interests could have theoretically led to a tense and difficult negotiation, one that lasted several days in show time and produced a surprising outcome. Gendry, the new lord of the Stormlands, might be looking to shore up his shaky claim on his title (as a bastard elevated by the now-dead Daenerys). It’s not just the North that wants independence, for example: Both the Iron Islands and Dorne are historically separate from the rest of Westeros and might well be looking to secure their own freedom from the Iron Throne. The show would have paid close attention to each of its main characters’ objectives and approaches to the discussion, with the side characters’ interests and motivations somewhat outlined as well. In the past, a meeting of this importance could have taken up an entire episode of Game of Thrones. The fate of the country hangs in the balance. Everyone has apparently decided to meet to negotiate Tyrion and Jon’s fate with Grey Worm and the Unsullied, a discussion that could potentially end in yet another brutal battle if they can’t work out a compromise. He is brought befor an assembly of the Seven Kingdoms’ most powerful lords and ladies - from protagonists like Sansa and Arya to side characters like Yara Greyjoy and whoever the new Prince of Dorne is. So Tyrion is in jail, apparently for several weeks. Let’s zoom in on the resolution of the Iron Throne plot, the show’s core concern over eight seasons. It’s a deeply frustrating end to what was, at its best, one of the deepest and most exciting shows on television.ĥ winners and 9 losers from Game of Thrones’ series finale The way the Game of Thrones was won made no sense The problem was the execution: The show so prioritized shock value over cogent character development and attention to political detail that the complex reality of Westeros - the element of the series that had previously engaged so many viewers so deeply - crumbled like a King’s Landing tower blasted by dragonfire. Daenerys going mad could have made sense, as could Bran becoming the king. Unlike some viewers, I don’t object to some of Game of Thrones’ big concluding plot points per se. And the politics of the show, a key part of what made it feel so different and fresh way back in 2011, completely fell apart - to the point where it was impossible to treat the series as having anything like verisimilitude. In one episode, Euron pretty easily killed one of Dany’s dragon with a well-aimed ballista, but in the next episode, no one could seem to hit the sole dragon that remained. Battles were decided purely by narrative convenience. People did things because the plot required them to, not because their actions were consistent with their past behavior. In its final season, Game of Thrones dispensed almost entirely with trying to make sense of its characters’ internal motivations - let alone the complex political reality that its psychological realism initially helped create. Jon Snow returns to the Night’s Watch, which no longer has any reason to exist, and then maybe-possibly defects to the wildlings? And Arya Stark, for no real reason, decides to become Christopher Columbus. Sansa Stark wins independence for the North without so much as an argument from any of other assembled lords. The resolution to the defining conflict of the series - the battle for the Iron Throne and the future of the Westerosi monarchy - is essentially determined by Tyrion Lannister making an impassioned speech. Maybe that’s why Game of Thrones’ final episode, “The Iron Throne,” felt like such a personal slap in the face. After I graduated and became a journalist covering global affairs, I started writing about the show professionally - publishing piece after piece after piece on how it related to and illuminated the real-world workings of global politics. Part of what captivated me about the show (and the books it was based on) was its political realism: The nuanced motivations of the Seven Kingdoms’ leading players, the mundane workings of the Small Council, and the long history of Westerosi conflict and how it shaped the protagonists’ worldviews. When Game of Thrones premiered, all the way back in 2011, I was a graduate student studying international relations.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |