Women in fantasy: the illusion of self-empowerment

Dear producers, filmmakers, screenwriters and costume designers,

In honor of this march 8th (which happens to be the International Women’s Day) I would like to ask a little change: stop inflicting on the world the tough-independent-don’t need a man-I dress way too sexy-brooding female hero stereotype. This has especially been relevant in the fantasy universes.

Characters like Xena (Warrior Princess), any female character in the Conan series, Sif (Thor), the new Maleficent or, the newcomer, Katniss Everdeen fit into this description. These are generally one-dimensional characters whose main definition is that they are female and “warriors/fighters”. They are usually dressed with way too little clothing (prompting one to wonder what good is an armor for if it barely covers your modesty) and are angry with the world and reject the male gender (a movie like Barb Wire did take this far too literally for its own good). And they are all terribly blend. They are just an idea of a female role model. They are one-dimensional and paper-thin. The problem is that the general consensus is that this is somehow empowering to women.

I do understand the female fantasy of fighting wars just like men (especially because that’s a role that has been traditionally denied to women), but do we need to do it in a tiny, tiny body armor that will show every inch of skin?

Lady Sif from the Thor movies

Xena: Warrior Princess

A character like Eowyn doesn’t need to do it. She fights, kicks ass and is NOT one-dimensional and, most important, does it with a full armor (thanks for that Peter Jackson). Brienne doesn’t need it. Arya doesn’t need it. But sadly these are just exceptions. Most of female fantasy characters are still either the princess or the sexy kick-ass of the story (and whatever the case they will have to look pretty at all times).

It seems like the idea of “girl power” has somehow been translated to: angry and sexy. So, according to the mass media (movies, literature, comics, TV shows…) if you want to be an independent-empowered woman, you have to look sexy and hate the world. And to me, this is just another way of exploitation (movies attempts to gain success by “exploiting” a current trend or a genre or any element that differs from the norm: Blaxploitation, sexploitation…). 

Apparently the image of self-empowerment in the media is still filtered through a basically male conception of “empowerment”: “yes, she’ll be a super kick-ass character. She’ll slaughter trolls in a miniskirt and stilettos!” (this is basically the thought process of 90% of the producers in the industry).

It’s so shameful that in the year 2015 most of the female characters on screen are so one-dimensional. If they are the protagonists then they never develop a personality of their own, sticking to the angry and sexy, and if they are not protagonist, then they are relegated to being the token girl for the hero.

And this is a generalized problem. It happens in all genres. A director like Christopher Nolan (whom I’ll admit is pretty darn good at directing) is still incapable of writing good female characters. Most of the times they turn out to be just a token for the perfectly well-rounded male protagonist. And so, his movies conform a very masculine universe. This is not bad in and on itself. The problem is that the industry seems dominated by this masculine universe, which gives way to a very frustrating phenomenon: if the movie protagonist is a male, then he’ll be a well-rounded character (or at least they will try) and the movie’s target will be both for men and for women. But it the protagonist is female, then she’ll be poorly written and the movie will be entirely targeted at women (yes, I’m looking at you Mamma mia).

I think that this is the core problem. Somehow, female characters never get as polished and well-rounded as male characters. I’m not sure whether this is because in an industry dominated by men most screenwriters can’t write women well or because they think that it’s not necessary.

What feminism (more like women in general) needs is for movies to give us good female characters: multi-layered, complex and well-rounded characters that are more than an illusion of self-empowerment. What’s really self-empowering is seeing female-characters treated as humans. Female characters, just as the male ones, have distinct personalities, strengths and flaws because they are humans as well.

What female characters demand is equality. Equality of treatment. The right to be as flawed and petty as male characters are allowed (for some reason women in movies are not generally pathetic the just have two set-points: either they are demons or angels)

That is what sets apart a writer like George R.R Martin; he is capable of writing female characters that are psychologically complex, interesting and human: Cersei, Brienne, Sansa…. are all very different women and all are treated as unique human beings, both results of their environment and victims of it at the same time.

Brienne of Tarth. A real female warrior

“It’s about treating men and women the same, I regard men and women as all human - yes there are differences, but many of those differences are created by the culture that we live in, whether it's the medieval culture of Westeros, or 21st century western culture.”
[….]
“All of the characters should be flawed; they should all have good and bad, because that's what I see. Yes, it’s fantasy, but the characters still need to be real.”
--George R.R Martin

Unfortunately, characters like Princess Leia, Eowyn, Cersei or Brienne walk the lonely path of the good fantasy female character (made a little less lonely by Mister Martin).

So, today, in this very special day, I ask you (producers, filmmakers, screenwriters and costume designers) to please reconsider this worrying trend in media. Stop thinking about giving us female role models and start empowering female characters the only way you can: by making real human characters.

Maleficent

For the last few years, a rather peculiar trend has infected the movie industry in regards to fantasy movies: the “retelling” of fairy tales. I’m not talking about bringing to the screen our childhood fairy tales like Disney Animation has done for almost a century; I’m talking about retelling this fairy tales as epic stories with the intention of giving them a more adult look and feel. This has been going on for the past two/three years, and it’s starting to bother me.

It started with Tim Burton’s “Alice in wonderland” (2010) and was followed by “Red Riding Hood” (2011). But it really became a “thing” with the simultaneous release of “Mirror Mirror” and “Snow white and the Huntsman” in 2012. The success of these two films gave way to “Jack the Giant Slayer” (2013), “Hansel and Gretel: Witch hunters” (2013), “Oz, the Great and Powerful” (2013), “La bete et la bêlle” (2014) and “Maleficent” (2014). But it doesn’t end there, there are several others in production: “Into the woods” and “Cinderella”. So, unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be going away anytime soon.

Many people has told me that this is insignificant and that I should not get so worked up about it because these are kids movies. Well, maybe. But my grievance over them goes beyond the fact that they are not particularly good.

Fairy tales work in a very peculiar way, which is radically different from the narrative mechanisms of high fantasy: simple story lines, childlike logic, archetypical characters… There is, obviously, some common ground for both mediums (fantastical lands, magic,…) but these are not so many as one might think. And so, by trying to turn fairy tales into high fantasy stories, what we are really doing is this Frankenstein monster which isn’t really a fairy tale nor a high fantasy, and ends up ruining both. 

When first I started thinking about talking about this, I thought of doing it through the reviews of both “Snow White and the Huntsman” and “Mirror Mirror”. But then I saw “Maleficent” and changed my mind.

As bad as “Snow White and the Huntsman” was, and as weird as “Mirror Mirror” could get, nothing could reach the level of stupidity of “Maleficent”; a movie that encapsulates everything awful about the “epic retelling” trend and abuses of every topic in the book of storytelling.

“Maleficent” is a retelling of Disney’s animated classic “Sleeping Beauty”, and tries to be an origin story for the main villain: Maleficent.

To understand why this movie is as bad as it is it’s necessary to talk a little about the original Disney classic. “Sleeping beauty” is the 16th animated film released by the Disney Animation Studios. It premiered in 1959 and since then, has become one of the most iconic Disney Animated Movies of all times.

This was a movie that spent almost a whole decade in production: the story work began in 1951, the voices were recorded in 1952, the animation production took from 1953 until 1958 and the score was recorded in 1957. So, as this clearly reveals, it was not a “fast product”. This movie was Disney’s attempt at creating a visual masterpiece. They strived for a certain artistic excellency and tried to create something unique and beautiful. This created a piece of an incredible artistic value: with its richly detailed backgrounds inspired in the Renaissance paintings (interchanging perspective with layering), its strictly horizontal and vertical orientation, and its beautiful score that adapts Tchaikovsky’s music for his ballet version of sleeping beauty.

Empty backgrounds for the movie

All this, coupled with a timeless story and some memorable characters, set a new standard for animation movies.

Amongst this memorable characters, the most memorable of all was, without doubt; Maleficent, the self-proclaimed mistress of all evil. With her fantastic design, her diabolical plans, and her awesome final transformation into a dragon, she has become one of the most iconic Disney villains of all time.

As you can see, the bar was set really high for a “reimagining”. For a long time, this kept the idea of retelling the sleeping beauty story at bay. But for some reason, in the late 2010’s someone thought that retelling the story of Maleficent (not the story of sleeping beauty) would be a good idea.

Maleficent, in the original movie, doesn’t have much of a background or backstory. She is first introduced in the baptism of Aurora, where she curses the baby to die by pricking her finger with a spinning wheel only because she feels slighted. She is basically evil; that’s how she’s described. The enjoyment of this character lies on her coolness: she is evil and has an incredible amount of fun being evil.

So, how do you tell the story of a character who is basically evil? By turning her the “goodie” of the movie, of course (I still can believe that anyone ever thought this could work).

With this movie, they wanted to create a big epic film filled with battles and magic, and with a big “strong-independent-woman” message behind it. And I really don’t think that the story they were “remaking” was the best medium for this.

So, what is the basic story for this “new” sleeping beauty movie? I’ll try and explain briefly.

Maleficent is a fairy (yes, she has wings) from the magical kingdom (the “Moors”) that collides with a human kingdom ruled by a bigoted king who wants to get rid of his magical neighbors. She grows up to be the most powerful and the kindest of her kind and becomes the protector of her kingdom. Because of this, when the human king attacks, she comes to the defense of the Moors and defeats (with the help of other creatures that I’m incapable to name) the humans by mortally wounding the king. In his wrath, the king offers the hand of his daughter and the throne of the kingdom to whomever can kill Maleficent. Stephan, a poor boy who grew up as a friend (and love interest) to Maleficent, corrupted by the promise of power, deceives Maleficent and cuts her wings off. And so, he becomes king. And she, in anger, becomes a “baddie” and crowns herself queen of the Moors. 

When Stephan has her first daughter, she breaks in the christening and curses the child. In response to that, the king decides to send off Aurora with the three good fairies to live in secrecy in the middle of the forest. But the three fairies turn out to be useless and can’t take care of the child properly. Because of this, Maleficent will start looking out for the child from the distance, and will end up creating an affective bond with Aurora. Because of this, she tries to lift up the curse, but she finds herself unable. Therefore she’ll have to find the way to save Aurora and bring back peace between the Moors and the Human Kingdom.

It’s even sillier than it sounds.

This movie has a tone of problems, but the worst part is that these are not only narrative problems; neither story, nor characters, nor visuals really work. Unfortunately, the characters are the ones that end up getting the worst of this deal.

Maleficent, the mistress of all evil, becomes just another spited woman who feels betrayed by a man. Really? Why every time Hollywood tries to give a backstory to an iconic female character ends up with this same story? (let’s not forget the train wreck that was Catwoman) I feel really affronted by this issue: there are a thousand reasons a female can decide to do something bad towards another person. To keep insisting on the “oh my god, a man treated me wrong and now I’m all bitter and evil” thing is insulting to the female population beyond measure. It’s instilling the idea that a woman’s life and character depend entirely on her relationship with men. But the worst of all is that this movie tries to be “empowering” to women. I’m about to be controversial, but mark my words: CERSEI LANNISTER IS A MORE EMPOWERING FEMALE CHARACTER than this. Why? because she is not written as a “female” character, she is written like a “human” character: she has flaws, obsessions, desires and overall characteristics that are indistinct to her gender. And that’s what every female character in fiction should do. That’s it, I had to say it.

The second obvious problem with their take on Maleficent is pretty easy to spot: she’s good now? The movie doesn’t even has the balls to go all out and portray a real villain. If you’re going to do this, what’s the point in focussing in this specific character? 

What makes the original character as epic and memorable is the fact that she is so bad ass and evil; she has so much fun messing with people’s lives that it’s compelling. Her schemes are downright cruel, and that is why she rocks. In the 1959 movie, she doesn’t try to kill the prince, she decides to lock him up until he is old and grey while his love sleeps in an immortal slumber, so when he finally gets the chance to awake her he’ll be too old to have any kind of sexual activity but she’ll be just as young as when he last saw her. That’s twisted. Taking the “evil” out of her is just ruining the fun of the character. Besides, she transformed into a huge dragon, I still can’t believe they skipped this in this remake.

But she is not the only character they messed up. I still don’t understand what they did to our beloved three good fairies. Somehow they’ve been transformed into three bumbling idiots. They are simply useless. Remember the fun upbeat fairies of the animated classic? Well, now they are just the most useless people in the universe. And someone thought this was a good change? There’s really nothing much else to say about them because this new interpretation does them a huge disfavor.

Aurora, on the other hand, continues to be just a dull character. One would think that they could have taken their time to fix that, but no, they needed more screen time to explain the incredible “complexity” of their new take on Maleficent. 

Last but not least, one remarkable aspect of this movie is the fact that every male character that’s in it is dumb, useless or downright evil. And poor king Stephan is the one that suffers the greatest. He didn’t have much character in the original, but it wasn’t needed. And I understand that this time he needed to be a bit more fleshed out. But what they did is just stupid. According to this version, he is a man corrupted by power and who ends up going mad because of it. The worst part is that he is a one note character: first he is ambitious, then he is mad. Nothing more to explain. One might think that the only way hollywood knows how to do female empowering movies is by stereotyping its male characters so that they fit this “men are all dicks” slot.

And to top all this: the actors are horrible. Even Angelina Jolie. Much has been said about her, but she has never been a top notch actress. She may have done some entertaining movies, but she is no Kate Winslet or Julianne Moore. And this is very noticeable here. She kind of holds her own when she only has to be there and function as a presence, but the moment she needs to put dramatic intensity the whole thing crumbles, and her acting becomes kind of silly. She definitely looks the part, but I don’t think she has the dramatic strength to pull it off.

Because of all this, the problems with the storyline are pretty much connected with the character problems. First of all, trying to justify that Maleficent is not the real baddie forces the storyline into some heavy contradictions and silly turns. Second of all, it feels forced and stupid, which doesn’t help at all.

On top of that, it has zero stylistic aspirations, and completely ignores that creative drive that motivated the original movie. Here, the main drive is getting as many people into the theaters, whilst in the original, the main drive was to create an artistic piece that could boast of both visual and narrative artistry. Because of this, the movie looks exactly like any other blockbuster out now. It has nothing distinctive in style or look. The CGI looks nice, true, but it’s utterly unoriginal.

Take a look at this two pictures. They both belong to the same scene;
the only scene that is exactly the same in both movies.

But the real problem for me lies in the fact that when you give an origin story to a villain, it generally tends to ruin them. Because the moment you uncover the veil of mystery around them they stop being interesting or scary; it takes the fun away. It’s almost like trying to make an origin story for the Nolan’s Joker. With this kind of characters, the less we know about them, the more interesting they are. And the worst thing an adaptation can do is make you question if the original material was really that good to begin with.

Its contradictions, it’s shifting tone, the poor acting and its lack of stylistic aspirations turn this movie into another mindless movie made to cash in money. And what’s worse; it ends up being more childish than the animated movie. It tries to go for a more mature and three-dimensional story, but fails completely at it.

The failure of this movie serves me to reaffirm my belief that the medium transfer needed to turn a fairy tale into a big fantasy epic is not as simple as most Hollywood executives believe. There is one core problem: fairy tale are quick and simple, it’s a pretty straightforward narrative; high fantasy is not. Both genres might share the use of magical elements and far away lands, but that’s about it. The complexity of the inner workings of good high epics demands a level of work and creativity that most studios won’t commit to. 

To transfer a fairy tale into a high epic you would need to create a whole new world; its specific geography (which fairy tales never do), a distinct inner working, a characteristic culture and language, etc… Otherwise, all you’ll do will be taking the more “spectacular” aspects of high fantasy (battles, extraordinary odds….) and shoe horn them in the fairy tale. All you’ll be doing will be putting a fairy tale on steroids.

What defines high fantasy such as “Lord of the Rings” or “Game of thrones” is not the great battles; it’s not even the magical creatures. It’s the capacity to create new complex worlds that feel as real as our own, and suck in the viewer/reader. It’s usually filled with a cast of thousands; there are many many characters in this type of stories. It’s the size and scope of the story and its complexity in terms of character, morals and values.

What defines a fairy tale, on the other hand, is the focus on the morals or “lesson” that is meant to get across. It usually takes place on a nondescript place (a castle, a forest…) in a nondescript time (a long time ago…) and it’s usually reduced to two-five characters at most.

All in all, I’m disappointed that this is the route fantastic cinema is taking right now. I’d be happier if they focussed on doing real high fantasy movies instead of trying to convert Disney fairy tales into huge epic stories that try to emulate the classics of high fantasy.

New projects are coming this way!!

Good day to all of you!!

First of all I'd like to apologize for letting so much time pass without publishing anything new. It's been a really complicated summer and I was unable to find any time to write anything worth sharing with you guys.

I just started my last year in collage, and I have already tons of work; but I promise I'll try and publish something good as often as I can.

For now, I can tell you that I am working on something already, and that I'll try and have it done before the end of this month.

Meanwhile, I leave you with this awesome web side I came across with.

http://lotrproject.com/

https://www.facebook.com/lotrproject?fref=ts

This is an incredible site dedicated entirely to Tolkien's works. It's very visual and interactive, and will definitely entice any hard-core Tolkien fan.

I really hope you enjoy it.

Thanks for your time and your patience.

Between the lines: Game of Thrones

Just sharing! Have a look at this wonderful analysis of Game of Thrones, its world, its historical influences and more.

This is made by Brows Held High.

And if you have the time, check out his other videos, which are all very interesting.

http://blip.tv/brows-held-high/between-the-lines-game-of-thrones-6803322

The Lion and The Rose

Last sunday’s episode of Game of thrones was huge. And everyone is talking about it, so I thought I’d review it. For those of you who still haven’t got the chance to see it, please save this link and come back once you’ve seen it. There will be MAJOR SPOILERS. This first post will be a review for viewers of the show who hasn’t read the books. And later I’ll post a review for readers.

With that said, let’s start this party!

We start this episode in the woods. With what seems to be  a “human” hunt. And so, we are reintroduced to the character of Ramsay Snow. He is one sick bastard, all readers know that. And I particularly like how they show that in only that scene (not that the show didn’t show it before, after all, he did cut off Theon’s dick). The difference, for me, is that up until now, whenever we saw the Bastard of Bolton, he was torturing Theon. Which was cruel, but after all, Theon had invaded the north and killed the Stark children, so there was a reason. Here, instead, we see him hunting down a defenseless girl: she is bare footed, almost naked and unarmed. And Ramsey and this Myranda are hunting her down with dogs and arrows. That is sick. And to top that, it is all presented as a game: Ramsay talks to the girl like it’s a game.

The actor that plays Ramsay Snow does a fantastic job. He really seems to be having a genuine good time. He really seems to enjoy every second of his cruelty. And that is what makes this character as disgusting as it is.

This scene also introduces Reek. He is the man that used to be Theon Greyjoy. He is the result of all the torturing that we saw in season 3. And he really has become a lackey of sorts, closest to Ramsay’s “bitches” than to a human being.

After that, we cut to King’s Landing with a joke. The last shot of the scene with the bastard is a close up of Theon. And from that, we cut to a shot of Podrick serving sausages to Tyrion. I have no idea if it was an intended wink to the audience regarding Theon getting his dick cut off or if it was just coincidence. But knowing the little I know about making movies, I would bet my hand that it is intentional. 

This scene is a rather simple one. But quite touching. It’s Tyrion and Jaime eating together. Jaime spills some wine because he can’t grab anything with his gold hand and this leads to Tyrion suggesting that he should train with his other hand. And so he offers Bronn to spar with Jaime until he gets good enough. As I said, it is a rather simple scene, but it’s really nice to see the dynamics between the two brothers, who surprisingly get along perfectly. 

And so, the next scene is Bronn training with Jaime. There’s a detail in this scene that I particularly like. Jamie is considered the best swordsman in Westeros (or at least until his hand was cut), and he is used to be treated as such. Which explains why he seems offended that Bronn treats him the way he does. Bronn treats him as if he is a rookie. Because that is what he’s been reduced to: he can’t fight anymore, so he is a rookie. It’s not a great scene, but definitely has great character moments. 

Next we are introduced to the Dreadfort, the seat of House Bolton. Roose Bolton has just returned with his wife, Fat Walda, and he is greeted by his bastard. Bolton immediately asks him to bring Theon Greyjoy. And he gets really pissed when he sees him. Because he really was a valuable hostage, and now he is worth nothing. Let’s not forget that part of the north is still invaded by the ironborn. But what I personally think that is the best of this scene are the dynamics established between Roose Bolton and his Bastard son. First of all, they are really interesting dynamics, with Bolton reminding Ramsay all the time that he is just a bastard, and Ramsay trying to stand his ground. It’s radically different to the other father-bastard relationship that we have been shown (Nedd and Jon), and it is interesting and may have a continuity. The other interesting thing is that Roose Bolton tells Locke to go and find the Stark children (Bran and Rickon), which really sort of reveals one of the storylines of this season, at least that’s my guess.

Then there’s the “shave” scene. I must say that I was honestly disturbed by it. Even more than with the hunt scene. I can’t explain exactly why, but seeing Theon like that, like just a puppet, was more painful that I would have expected (especially because he is not exactly my favorite character). And his reaction to the Red Wedding was also very interesting.

This is followed by a brief conversation between Varys and Tyrion, where the spider tells Tyrion to get rid of Shae, because Cersei knows about her and it is only a matter of time before Tywin knows. Tyrion asks Varys to lie for him but he refuses. I like that scene because of that last part. I really enjoy Varys as a character and the fact that he refuses to lie actually is very revealing. He knows why they keep him in the council. He knows what would happen if he got involved in helping Tyrion, but despite that he still goes and warns him, which would be bad for him if they caught him. That’s why he refuses to lie. He is already doing a lot by warning him. 

The scene that follows is great. I have nothing bad to say about it. All I can say is that it is great. The scene depicts the breakfast wedding with Joffrey and the presentation of the wedding gifts. Mace Tyrell, Margery’s father, who is introduced in this episode, gives him a huge wedding cup, all studded with gems, and we see Joffrey playing the role of the regal King, who is kind and respects everyone. That is always fun, no matter what, because we, the audience and the characters know how he really is, and seeing him try so hard to play that role, it’s just hilarious. But the best comes when Tyrion presents his gift: a book about the lives of four Targaryen Kings. Joffrey’s face when he sees it is priceless. He really wants to lash out at his uncle, but knows that he has to play the wise and kind king. But for a whole second, you really expect him to lash out. That is why when he finally answers, his kindness is actually comical. But of course, he can only be a good person for so long. So when Tywin presents him Widow’s Wail (the valyrian steel sword reforged from Ice) he stands up almost like a kid on Christmas and starts chopping the book to pieces. Jack Gleeson’s delivery and performance is awesome. How he switches from kind king to mad idiotic king is just so enjoyable to watch. I really think that he is given much less credit than he deserves. His character is not an easy role to perform. Because he is not a cunning and smart sort of baddie. He is a teenager with clear psychopathic tendencies, who actually gets a hard on by being cruel. That’s the only way I can describe it. He gets excited by cruelty. I think that it is the only thing that excites him. And that is left blatantly clear later on in this episode.

This is followed by my least favorite scene in the episode. It’s not that it’s a bad scene, because it’s not. It’s just that I really don’t like Shae. In this scene Tyrion has to lie to her to get her away from King’s Landing and safe from his family. And of course, she doesn’t want to leave, so he has to tell her that he doesn’t love her and that she’s just a whore. Which does the trick. And that’s all I have to say: it’s a well done scene, but I really don’t like Shae.

Then we go back to Dragonstone for the first time this season. We see Melissandre burning Axel Florent and another two guys. We are also reintroduced to Selyse Baratheon, Stannis’ wife, who we hadn’t seen since season 2. This scene actually describes very well both Stannis and his wife. For those who haven’t read the book; Selyse Baratheon is a Florent by birth and Ser Axel Florent (the guy they burn) is his brother. So we see a woman who is capable of burning her own brother for her faith, and be happy about. She seems genuinely happy for him. She even says some bullshit about his soul having joined the Lord of Light and how great that is. She truly believes it. Stannis, instead, is a man who does what he must (in this case, burning his brother in law) but who doesn’t take any pleasure from it. He looks really uncomfortable.

This difference is cemented in the next scene: where we see Stannis, Selyse and Melissandre having supper and discussing their daughter. Selyse thinks she is a sinner and that’s the reason she has her faced marked. Stannis, instead, insists that she is just a little girl and forbids Selyse to punish her. Instead, they sent Melissandre to speak to her. And so, the next scene goes as follows: Melissandre goes to visit the princess and speak about the burnings and the Lord of light. This scene, actually, only serves for furthering my fear of Melissandre. She’s so capable of looking kind and wise but at the same time she is terribly cruel and enjoys burning people. It’s actually rather creepy.

From there, we go to the Bran story line. We find him and his friends already north of the Wall, starving and half lost. We are told that Bran is spending more time in Summer’s skin (let’s not forget that he is a warg) and Jojeen warns him that if he does that, he is going to forget who he really is. And that is not good, obviously. Then, whilst marching north, they come across a heart tree (the Gods of the North) and Bran asks them to halt. He is brought by Hodor to the tree and when he lays a hand on it, he is shown a series of images, some belong to the past, and some to the future. He has visions of his father, but also of a dragon shadow in Kings Landing. And he is told to look for the three-eyed raven beneath a certain tree in the north. And so, they finally know what they are looking for.

This scene also serves to cement the idea that Bran isn’t imagining the three-eyed raven. He is actually being contacted by someone. And that is important. On top of that, we see another aspect of Bran’s power: he can slip into Summer (his direwolf), he can slip into Hodor, and now, he can slip into the heart tree.

After that we finally go back to Kings Landing for the much expected wedding. This wedding is huge. Nothing compared to the Red wedding. It’s packed with people and everyone’s trying to look their best. And Margery’s costume design is great. I bow to whomever created. It’s gorgeous and matches the character perfectly. I’s a white-silver gown and the tail is filled with sewn roses and the bodice is held by the thorns that intertwine. It’s great. And the same goes to the hairstyling. Her hair is just huge. They’ve made this incredibly tall style with all her curls flowing. What I think it’s really smart about this design is that is beautiful but also shows the ambition of this character. She needs to be the queen, and she needs to be seen as beautiful. So all those elements are perfectly combined in the design of her wedding outfit.

And Joffrey actually looks marvelous too. He is like a peacock; all dressed in gold, with the richest of materials. It’s also great. They actually make a splendid couple; visually I mean.

But what I like the most about the wedding is the kiss. Joffrey is such a dick. He is trying to play the charming hero, but instead comes off as a bloated idiot. My second favorite thing is Sansa. I know a lot of people don’t like her, but let me explain. I love the fact that she genuinely looks bumped because of this wedding. Margery is taking the place that was meant to be hers. I don’t think that she resents not marrying Joffrey, no. I think that she resents not being the queen. This was her chance, and Margery took it. 

And from now until the end of this episode, we remain in Kings Landing. Which is not usual in a Game of thrones episode, but it’s worth it. Following the wedding, we enter the feast., and everything gets even better.

First we see another tête à tête between Lord Tywin and Lady Olena Tyrell. These are always enjoyable. I wish there could be more of them, because they are perfect. I especially like the moment when Olena tells her son, Lord Mace, to shut up and don’t interrupt. Let’s not forget that Mace Tyrell is the Lord of High Garden, not Olena. And yet, she treats her son as if he is still a babe. It’s a perfectly scripted scene, and it’s perfectly acted.

Then we pass to Tyrion, who is really upset about Shae, and Bronn has to tell him to move on. It’s really brief, but it’s topped with a great joke. He is walking to his table and Oberyn and Ellaria are walking up to him and greet him. He turns around only to find out that they weren’t greeting him, but instead they were talking to a half naked contortionist. 

This feast it’s extravagant, it’s opulent and completely over the top, that’s why it’s so great. There’s jugglers, singers, lots of food…

We have a brief exchange between Lady Olena and Sansa, where Olena actually gives her condolences for her brother’s death and invites her to visit Highgarden. I love how she remarks the fact that only a monster would kill a man at his wedding, especially because of the way this episode ends.

Then’s the cameo of Sigur Ros as singers, performing “The Rains of Castamere”. The best part though is seeing Joffrey making a jackass out of himself when he throws a handful of coins at them so they will leave. Then Margery announces that the leftover of the feast will be given to the poor, in an attempt to make his husband look better. It’s funny how she always does that. She is married to a madman, but she is always doing this gestures to the common folk, trying to win them for him, and instead, only succeeding in making her look better in comparison to him. Maybe that’s what she really wants, who knows?

I particularly like the exchange between Ser Loras and Ser Jaime regarding Cersei. It’s nice, because in the show, Loras hasn’t really been given much time to develop, and this scene does that. Jaime confronts him about marrying Cersei and tells him that he would never manage that. Ser Loras, instead of bulking out, answers back and tells him that neither will he. That’s a really low blow; because he is both telling him that he knows about the incest and he is also reminding him his bows as a man of the Kingsguard. And it’s funny. We are shown that he has guts, and that being gay is not all that defines him just because that’s the only thing we know about him.

Then Cersei confronts Brienne about her being in love with Jaime. That’s a nice scene, because it is true. Brienne loves Jaime. But the fun thing is when Cersei realizes it is true. It’s brief, it’s cute and it makes Cersei uncomfortable, what else could we ask for?

One of my favorite moments though, is when Cersei tells Pycelle to give the leftovers to the palace dogs. By contradicting Margery, she is trying to hold the little power she still has. As Oberyn points out later; Joffrey’s wedding marks an end to her regency, and therefore she loses her power as Regent Queen. It’s a necessary moment to show, because to Cersei,  power is everything. And now she is losing it. The best though, is how satisfied she seems afterwards. 

But the best is the confrontation between Tywin, Cersei and Oberyn and Ellaria. It’s great. There are so many cultural insults thrown back and forth. And the best is that they are said with the best of manners by both sides. I particularly like when Oberyn remarks that Cersei is now the ex-Queen Regent.

This is followed by Joffrey making an idiot of himself again and being cruel and offensive to everyone. He brings forward five dwarves to represent the War of the Five Kings. Why is it offensive? Well, first of all, it’s offensive to the Tyrells because the dwarf that plays Renly appears mounting a dummy with a blond wig, clearly meaning Loras. It’s offensive to Sansa Stark, because they reenact how Robb lost his head, and then, the dwarf playing Joffrey fucks his head. And on top of that, it’s offensive to Tyrion because they are dwarves. It’s really interesting to see how happy Cersei looks when she sees that the Tyrell’s are getting pissed. And is it me, or even Tywin smiled? It’s like they like knowing they can make them look bad. On the other hand, Margery looks really pissed about the whole affair, which is also interesting, because she is presented to us as a mild mannered girl. She doesn’t look mild mannered right now. It seems as if she could strangle Joffrey and Cersei at the moment. The same goes for Lady Olena.

And then Joffrey orders Tyrion to participate in the fight, but he declines. Instead, he says that Joffrey should fight, and show everyone his courage in battle (which is a clear reference to his cowardice during the battle of the Blackwater). Joffrey, of course, gets pissed, and pours a cup of wine onto Tyrion’s head. Margery, of course, tries to be the good queen and stop Joffrey by distracting him. But Joffrey is dead set on torturing Tyrion and orders him to be his cupbearer. I love how Tyrion responds to each offense with the utmost courtesy and how that pisses Joffrey even more.

The only one who actually seems to be enjoying this is Cersei, which actually corroborates what a huge bitch she is. Even Margery looks uncomfortable, and Mace Tyrell won’t even look.

Then Joffrey insists that Tyrion should kneel, which he doesn’t, but Joffrey keeps insisting. And Margery tries agains to distract him by pointing out that they are bringing out the pie. It’s actually funny how she changes from being uncomfortable to overly happy when they bring out the pie. And so, Joffrey proceeds to cut the pie.  Margery keeps trying to distract by feeding him his wedding pie. But Joffrey, being the little cruel idiot that he is, keeps asking Tyrion to serve him the wine.

And what comes next, is probably the best 5 minutes of tv shows’ history. Joffrey starts to have trouble swallowing, and before anyone knows, he’s choking to death. He throws himself to the floor, trying to breath and Cersei rushes towards him trying to help. Everything is chaos. Until he finally dies in Cersei’s arms amidst blood and vomit. And then…. Cersei accuses Tyron of murdering the King and gets him arrested. Life is really unfair to the poor man.

Joffrey’s death is probably the most satisfying moment of the show up to this point. He was so loathsome, that everybody wanted him dead. And now, he’s finally dead. But at the same time, the scene was terribly disturbing. For that, I want to give a huge thumbs up to the show. They did an incredible job at bringing out the humanity of the moment. He might have been a douchebag, but he is still someone who is painfully chocking to death. It is painful to see; how he starts bleeding through his nose as his skin turns a disgusting shade of blue-green. They even went for the bloodshot eyes. It’s not pretty. And I like that. Death should never be pretty, even when you are killing one of the most hated characters of the show. But it goes beyond that; Joffrey’s humanity isn’t the only one that is brought out. Cersei’s too. She might be a horrible person, but she is, after all, a mother watching her son die in her arms. And that’s what I most liked about this episode: how able it was to deliver the most desired death in the “Game of thrones” universe and yet make you feel bad about it.

And that’s it with this second episode of the fourth season. All in all it was a great episode and deserves more than one viewing. We finally get to see Joffrey die and to top it, we are left with a tone of questions? Who killed Joffrey? How? Will Tyrion get out of this one?

What do you think? Let me know!

A Song of Ice and Fire: Fantasy and History IV

George R. R. Martin doesn’t only take ideas from famous historical figures to shape his own characters. He also “steals” ideas from historical events to shape his plots. And because of this, today I will not be looking into any specific character and its historical influence. Instead, I am going to focus on the main historical events behind the shocking and bloody Red Wedding.

It goes without saying that THERE WILL BE SPOILERS for anyone who still hasn’t read “A Storm of Swords” (and there might be some spoiler for “A Dance with Dragons” too) or seen the third season. Read at your own risk.

The so-called Red Wedding is a shocking and horrifying event within the Game of Thrones universe. It’s the event that marks the end of Robb’s Rebellion; but instead of taking place on a battle (as we would expect) it happens during a wedding, shocking viewers and readers alike.

Robb Stark, the crowned King in the North, needs to win back the Lords of the Crossing after breaking his oath of marrying one of the Frey girl’s and marrying Jeyne Westerling (in the books) or Talisa Stark (in the TV show). And to do so, he offers his uncle; Lord Edmure Tully (the future Lord of Riverrun) to marry one of Walder Frey’s granddaughters. The pact is sealed and so, Robb marches north with his army to the Twins to attend to said wedding. All seems to be going great until the bride and groom are carried away from the main hall for their bedding. Then, a song starts to play. It’s “The Rains of Castamere”, the famous song that immortalizes the destruction of House Reyne by the Lannisters. And then the blood starts running. All the northern men that accompanied Robb are brutally killed. Robb is hit by arrows and stabbed by Roose Bolton whilst one of the Freys slits Catelyn’s throat. 

* And in the show they also kill Talisa and their unborn child. Which makes the event even more bloody.

So, where could have Martin got the idea for something as gruesome and gory as this. If it came only from his imagination, well, then he really is as psychopathic as we all feared. But the truth is that this event is heavily inspired by two gruesome events in Scottish history; the Black Dinner and the Massacre of Glencoe.

Let’s start by talking a bit about the Black Dinner. It is an infamous event in medieval Scottish history, and it took place in 1440. In the early fifteen century, the Douglas Clan became very powerful landlords in the Scottish Lowlands. Such was their power that they were seen as a threat to the stability of Scotland, especially by one of their rival clans; Clan Crichton. They thought that the Douglas’ Clan was just too strong and they were threatening to upset the  country’s delicate balance.

Before continuing, let me point out that the growing number of rival clans within medieval Scotland was the cause of the ever frail balance of power. Just as it happens in the North within the Game of Thrones universe. Martin states that is really difficult to unite all families of the North within a common cause and that there is always strife between them despite their similarities. This, in my opinion makes it obvious that the North is clearly inspired by medieval Scotland, the same way that King’s Landing is inspired by the old city old Constantinople.

But let’s go on with the issue at hand. In the year 1440, William, the chief of Clan Douglas was a man of only six-and-ten (only two years older than Robb Stark) and he had barely been involved in any serious politics. Nevertheless, for some, the Douglas’ Clan still represented a serious threat. Why? Because the Scottish king; James II was still a boy of ten years old, and was considered that someone as powerful as William Douglas could easily influence the King and take control of him and the council.

Because of this, Clan Crichton, with the help of Alexander Livingston of Callendar and other names lost to history,  made plans to break the power of Clan Douglas.

Sir William Crichton, castellan of Edinburgh Castle, invited William Douglas to a feast at the court of the young king. The Douglas’ Clan chief, presented himself to court accompanied by his younger brother, David and his advisor.

A banquet was held in  the Great Hall of Edinburgh Castle, and it is reported that the young king was charmed by the Douglas’ brothers. Once the feast was coming to an end, a black bull’s head was brought into the hall by the servants. For that was an ancient Scottish symbol of death. Without any more warning, the brothers were seized and dragged out of the castle, where they were given a mock trial and were sentenced for high treason. Both were quickly beheaded.

Little had they know when they had entered the Hall. Obviously the presence of the King had made them feel safe. And of course, the laws of hospitality. In medieval society, the tradition of hospitality was sacred, and therefore, any guest was under the protection of their hosts.

The resemblance here with the Red Wedding is quite obvious. Both victims were put at ease by the safety that the laws of hospitality guaranteed them (since they are also sacred in Westeros, and it is specifically told that any men that breaks it is forever accursed), and their deaths were signaled by something symbolic; the bull head’s and the “Rains of Castamere”.

The death of the Douglas’ brothers, extinguished the main male line of the Douglas Chiefs. Because of this, their lands and titles fell into the hands of James the Gross, lord of Avondale (William’s great-uncle). He sought no revenge for the murders, which might indicate that he had been a conspirator along with Crichton. 

Just like in Game of Thrones. The Red Wedding leaves the northern rebellion without a King, and the Starks without an heir, which helps Roose Bolton (who had conspired with the Freys) land the charge of Warden of the North.

The other major event in the history of Scotland that may be behind the conception of the Red Wedding is the Massacre of Glencoe. This is slightly different, for this time it’s the guests who kill the hosts, but still, there are similarities.

In 1688, William, Prince of Orange accepted the invitation to take the English throne. The Scottish Parlament wasn’t happy and requested the return of James VII of Scotland (named II of England) who had been exiled to France. The response of James II wasn’t the one they expected: he persuaded them to accept William as their King. Disregarding it, John Graham led a force of Scottish Highlanders in a Jacobite Uprising to bring back James II, which failed.

On August 1691, King William offered all Highland clans a pardon for their part in the Jacobite Uprising. But they had to take an oath of allegiance before the 1st of January 1692 in front of a magistrate. The clans asked permission to James II to take the oath. The King’s answer, who was in France, came back in mid-December, a few weeks before the deadline. This, and the bad weather, caused Alisdair Maclain, 12th Chief of Glencoe to arrive late to taking the oath. But, as it was due to the weather, Sir Colin Campbell, sheriff of Argyll was forced to accept the oath as valid. But the failure to meet the deadline was enough of a pretense for the Campbell Clan to pursue their revenge against the perceived slights of the Maclain Clan.

And so, in the late January of 1692, they sent two companies of the Earl of Argyll under the command of Capitain Robert Campbell to Glencoe to quarter their troops. For two weeks, the soldiers were hosted by Alexander MacDonald (who was the son of Alisdair Maclain), Alisdair Maclain, and other members of the Clan.

On the morning of February 13, 1692, Capitan Campbell and his men were ordered to massacre the families who had sheltered them. And so, the bloodshed began. Alisdair Maclain was killed in his bed by Campbell’s soldiers. His sons and wife escaped, but 38 men of the clan were murdered in their homes or as they tried to flee.

And so, we can see the similarity between the Campbell Clan and the Freys, both of whom are capable of committing atrocious crimes to avenge what they perceive as slights to themselves.

But probably the biggest similarity between the two bloody events is the aftermath. In the case of the Massacre of Glencoe; it is actually remembered to this day, and all Glencoe inns and pubs bear signs that read: NO CAMPBELLS ALLOWED. This may only be for the tourist’s sake. But for hundreds of years, sings like that actually existed in Glencoe and weren’t for the tourists.

And perhaps, that is from where Martin took the Northmen’s motto: “The North Remembers”. Because after the Young Wolf’s murder, his Bannermen did surrender to King Joffrey, but they did not forget the Freys. Such is proven right in the chapter of “A Dance with Dragons” where Ser Davos sails to White Harbor to bring Lord Manderly to King Stannis’ side.

Lord Manderly tells Davos about the Red Wedding and complains about the Freys that he is forced to feast: “My son Wendel came to the the Twins a guest. He ate Lord Walder's bread and salt, and hung his sword upon the wall to feast with friends. And they murdered him. Murdered, I say, and may the Freys choke upon their fables. I drink with Jared, jape with Symond, promise Rhaegar the hand of my own beloved granddaughter ... but never think that means I have forgotten. The north remembers, Lord Davos. The north remembers, and the mummer’s farce is almost done. My son is home.” And true to his words, he has all the Freys that accompanied his son to White Harbor killed on the way to Winterfell to attend the Lord Ramsay’s Wedding.

And so, perhaps the North will remember just as Glencoe, after 300 years, still remembers.

A Song of Ice and Fire: Fantasy and History III

After a very long break (for which I am completely ashamed) I return to this blog to continue my series of post dedicated to the universe of “A song of Ice and Fire” by George R. R. Martin. This time I will be focussing on Margery Tyrell, the “sweet” and beautiful new Queen. And I will be comparing him to another “sweet” and beautiful new Queen; Anne Boleyn.

Margery Tyrell as portrayed in the HBO show

Portrait of Anne Boleyn

Before starting, I want to let one think clear: THERE WILL BE SPOILERS, in a really extensive way. The “problem” with Margery, is that a great part of her character development happens in “A feast for crows” and “A dance with dragons” (the last two published books), and it’s a bit difficult talking about her without making any mention to what happens in those books. So if you haven’t read those books and don’t want to be spoiled, please do not read this post. Go read the books, and then come back (or wait until the TV show covers that, whatever you like).

With that said, let’s start by talking about Anne Boleyn.

Anne Boleyn was the daughter of Thomas Boleyn, a well respected diplomat and favorite of Henry VII of England who would later become Earl of Wiltshire and Earl of Ormond. Anne and her siblings (Mary and George) grew up at Hever Castle in Kent. At the time of her birth, the Boleyn Family was considered one of the most respected within the English Aristocracy.

She became Queen of England in 1533 and reign until 1536 as the second wife of King Henry VIII of England. She was also named Marquess of Pembroke. Her marriage to Henry made her a key figure in the political and religious upheaval that was the start of the English Reformation. 

She grew up and received her education far away from the Tudor court; in the Netherlands and later France. She didn’t return to England until she was 20 years old (her age is not certain though) in order to marry James Butler, Earl of Ormond. The marriage wasn’t carried out in the end, but she secured a post at court as maid of honor to Henry VIII’s wife; Catherine of Aragon.

In 1526, the King began his pursuit of Anne. But, against all odds, she refused to become his mistress. After months of Anne’s denial, Henry’s wish to annul his marriage to Queen Catherine so he would be free to marry Anne grew stronger than ever. When the Pope refused to agree to the annulment, Henry decided to break the power of the Catholic Church in England by naming himself Head of the Church of England.

Soon after, Henry divorced Catherine and declared their marriage null and void. He married Anne on 25th January 1533. She was crowned Queen on the 1st of June of that same year.

A few months later, she gave birth to the future Queen Elizabeth, whose gender was a huge disappointment for Henry. Three miscarriages followed, and by March 1536, the King was courting another lady: Jane Seymour.

As time went on, Henry convinced himself that Anne would never give him a male heir and wished to get rid of her, so he had her investigated her for high treason and she was arrested and sent to the Tower of London on May the 2nd of 1536. 

There, she was tried before a jury. The charges laid against her were: adultery, incest, and witchcraft. She was found guilty on  the 15th of May. She was beheaded four days later.

Natalie Portman playing Anne in "The other Boleyn girl"

So, why exactly do I see any resemblance with Margery Tyrell? Well, it surely isn’t as obvious as it was in Tywin’s case. But I do believe there exists certain similarities.

Both Margery and Anne grew up and received their respective educations far away from the court they would later rule over. Margery grew up in Highgarden, the seat of her Lord Father; Mace Tyrell. And just as the Boleyn family, the Tyrell’s are one of the richest families in Westeros (only second to the Lannisters).

Anne Boleyn was secretly betrothed to Henry Percy, but said betrothal was broken and they never actually married. The case with Margery is not exactly like that, but there are some similarities. Margery actually married the rebel “False King” Renly Baratheon before marrying the King. But both her family and herself claim that the marriage was never consumed, so technically they were never really married.

Anne was considered to be brilliant, charming, elegant and graceful. Just like Margery. And she loved to flirt. Just like Margery. And Anne was also a devout Christian (although a revolutionary one). Just like Margery. In the book, especially in “A feast for crows”; we are told that Margery Tyrell goes very often to pray at the Sept of Baelor and she actually is depicted as a rather devout character.

The main difference between this two, in terms of personality is that Anne was really opinionated, really passionate and had a very sharp tongue an a terrible temper. But is that really a difference? Margery always comes off as meek and ladylike and very calm. But that (in my opinion) is just a façade. In the fourth book, there’s a scene that actually proves that. It’s when Cersei visits her at the Sept of Baelor after she’s been arrested for adultery. If you can recall, she screams and curses and calls Cersei a lying bitch (I don’t recall the exact words, but it was something like that) and reveals a much less “nice” side of her “perfect” persona, proving my point that she really is as passionate as Anne, but disguises it better.

Some actually describe Anne as “the perfect courtier”. Is there anything that would describe Margery better? That caused both women to have plenty of admirers and suitors at court.

And Margery, just as Anne, made a King set aside another woman in order to become Queen. Henry VIII divorced Catherine of Aragon, so he could make Anne his Queen. And King Joffrey broke the betrothal to Sansa Stark to marry Margery.

The idea of annulment, in Henry’s case, had been considered some time earlier by his desire to secure the Tudor line by conceiving a male heir. In Joffrey’s case, he had also been looking for an excuse to set aside the Stark girl. But in both cases, Anne and Margery played major roles in the breaking of these vows.

And besides all that, both women were special enough to be able to manipulate their respective kings. Henry VIII is known as much for his tendencies to behead wives as for his hot temper and his stubbornness. And Joffrey, being the vicious mad boy king he is, is as crazy as he is uncontrollable. But somehow, both Anne and Margery found a way to control these forces of nature, even if it was just for a little while.

But perhaps, the clearest similarity between these women lies within their downfall. 

In Anne’s case, it all started with the arrest of a Flemish musician in Anne’s service. He initially denied being the Queen’s lover, but later confessed (probably under torture). And because of this other nobles were arrested: Henry Norris, Sir Francis Weston, William Brereton, Sir Thomas Wyatt, Sir Richard Page and the Queen’s own brother: George Boleyn. They all claimed being innocent of the charges. The Queen herself defended her own innocence all the way through to her execution. But still, she was charged of adultery and incest, which being a Queen were crimes that were considered treason to the Crown. Most historians consider this charges to be nothing but a scheme to replace her as Queen.

Margery’s case is really similar (only that we don’t know how it ends because George R. R. Martin hasn’t written it yet). Cersei, feeling supplanted by this young Queen, plots to have her arrested. First she tortures the Blue Bard, a singer that often accompanies Margery and her cousins, in order to get him to confess having bedded Margery. And then she sends Osney Kettleblack to the High Septon to confess having been seduced by Margery. In the end, she stands accused of having had sexual encounters with: Osney Kettleblack, Jalabhar Xho, Bayard Norcross, Ser Tallad the Tall, Hugh Clifton, Hamish the Harper, Lambert Turnberry, Mark Mullendor and the Blue Bard. Cersei also wants to accuse Loras Tyrell (the Queen’s brother) but ends up deciding that it is unnecessary and completely unbelievable (Loras is a known gay). And so, Margery is arrested and imprisoned by the Faith at the Sept of Baelor where she is questioned day and night. At the end of the last published book, Margery is awaiting trial by the judges of the Faith.

But perhaps, the clearest similarities do not lie as much in the deeds of Anne Boleyn’s life, but in the perception the everyone else had of her.

Anne Boleyn can be seen as either a victim or a harpy; and has been depicted as both many a times. She is the woman who caused the break between England and the Catholic Church . And yet, some view her as a fervent Protestant reformer who ushered in the Reformation to England and paved the way for her daughter, Queen Elizabeth. And others consider her a very ambitious woman and an opportunist who slept her way to the top and set aside the much beloved Catherine of Aragon.

The same goes for Margery; the line between being her father’s pawn to reach power and being herself an ambitious and cunning woman who hungers for power is really blurred.

All in all, they both were women who rose to the top and made quite a lot of enemies on their way, whom ended causing their downfall.

* One really unimportant but funny fact: HBO cast as Margery Tyrell the actress Natalie Dormer, who had previously played Anne Boleyn in the The Tudors.