Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BethR

Game of Thrones

Recommended Posts

My feeling was they (the writers) should have made the entire scene consensual and made it about

Show hidden text
Jamie loathing himself for still loving Cercie
.  It would make sense with the redemptive arc the character has been on.  Instead, as it stands, the characters growth has been completely ruined. Edited by Thom Wade

"You know...not EVERY story has to be interesting." -Gibby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SpecFaith Blog says: "But 'Game of Thrones' still has porn in it."

 

I think the author is asking some good questions (and he touches on some of the reasons I kind of loathe the show at this point). And while I really like the book series, I also think Martin does get a bit too descriptive. But the smug tone (especially in the comment section) makes me want to scream and set the internet on fire. I unfortunately argued a bit on Alan Noble's Facebook page (after he linked to this) with both Burnett and Gunderson about the article; the latter read 150 pages of A Game of Thrones, hated it, and now speaks as if he's an expert on the series and Martin's motivation for writing it. Look—I applaud folks who are able to put a book down or stop a movie when it becomes a major stumbling block. But please, don't do this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. Not impressed by the article, either--though I do really like GoT. The tone is part of it, but there's some other considerations I'll have to unpack a bit later--when I'm not commenting from my phone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so a couple of comments:

 

1. Projection isn't argument. Implying that people who say they aren't "turned on" by the nudity are lying is projection. Which gets at a weird undercurrent I've noticed both times this critique has come across my radar in the past couple of weeks: it's not just sanctimonious, it's salacious. The implied [or explicit] "watch some real porn, you sad nerds," the winking implication that the author knows what we're really watching for--it's revealing. But not about fans of the show.

 

2. No, the burden of proof does not fall on fans of the show to demonstrate that the so-called "porn" is harmless or unobjectionable or whatever. The fact that the author gets all judge-y when he hears Christians raving about GoT says more about him than about the show's fans. It's petty of me, but I get antsy whenever anyone decides that they have the inside track on what's morally acceptable in art and that anyone who disagrees is obliged to give an explanation. Particularly since I'd rather talk about what I like about a show than run in circles trying to make myself look morally pure to some self-appointed Moral Guardian.

 

3. The article seems to be written by someone whose experience of GoT has been limited to a couple of episodes from season one and clips on Mr. Skin. The show starts--as many premium shows do--with sex as the admitted "hook" before dialing it back to focus on what really makes it work--the shifting loyalties, the political/philosophical undercurrent, and the copious use of the F-bomb [kidding on that last one]. That's a trope of this kind of show, and one can dislike it or like it [or, y'know, not really care--which is where I find myself], but saying GoT is just about the sex is like saying Sherlock Holmes is just about poisoning dogs: it happens, but it isn't the main attraction.

 

4. I'm not a filmmaker. But I am a Cracked.com reader. And it seems that the act of filming sex scenes is far less sexy than it looks on-screen [probably-nsfw video link--if you don't want to watch, just remember the phrase "hot jeans-on-jeans action"]. The fact that the actors look like they're not acting is, definitionally, the best proof that they are.

 

There's a couple of things that are not touched on, that probably should be--but probably wouldn't get a fair airing:

 

1. The place of erotics in art. No, it ain't a matter of porn-or-not-porn. On the one hand, porn's a certain kind of thing: it's a certain, um, genre of film-making. Having sexy scenes in movies or tv shows isn't porn--even if the show is Game of Thrones. On the other hand, Brown Bunny. But for the most part, I question the idea that a movie that plays to the libido [in addition to other aspects of the human psyche] is somehow more morally dangerous than one that plays to the funnybone. Erotic art has a long heritage, and it's just as worth making as any other kind.

 

2. For that matter, there's tons of nudity/sex in GoT that isn't erotic. This article implies that every instance of sex and nudity must of its nature be Actual Porn, or at least erotic. Which, no. I'm pretty comfortable saying that's incorrect.

 

3. For that matter, I really don't get the idea that watching naked actors do nakedy things causes viewers to objectify non-naked non-actors doing non-nakedy things. I can only speak for myself, of course, but I tend to have a pretty good idea of context, and that means that I don't confuse onscreen acting with offscreen reality. I like to think most viewers of most things have a similar ability to compartmentalize.

 

Ok, that's all very ranty. There are legitimate reasons to dislike the show, and a distaste for the eroticism/sex/nudity is one of them. But I think it's out of order to imply that people who like the show are hypocritical sex fiends who make up excuses to justify their impure desire to see Emilia Clarke in toto. That's not only bad form, it's fundamentally incurious--which is a worse sin, in my book, than watching a show with hot jeans-on-jeans action.

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, that's all very ranty. There are legitimate reasons to dislike the show, and a distaste for the eroticism/sex/nudity is one of them. But I think it's out of order to imply that people who like the show are hypocritical sex fiends who make up excuses to justify their impure desire to see Emilia Clarke in toto. That's not only bad form, it's fundamentally incurious--which is a worse sin, in my book, than watching a show with hot jeans-on-jeans action.

 

Oh, I agree. If I had a cooler head, I'd chime in more on the actual article. And the fact that someone is wrong on the internet is making me squirm. But, ya know...maybe that's just because I'm a perverted sex-fiend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ok, that's all very ranty. There are legitimate reasons to dislike the show, and a distaste for the eroticism/sex/nudity is one of them. But I think it's out of order to imply that people who like the show are hypocritical sex fiends who make up excuses to justify their impure desire to see Emilia Clarke in toto. That's not only bad form, it's fundamentally incurious--which is a worse sin, in my book, than watching a show with hot jeans-on-jeans action.

 

Oh, I agree. If I had a cooler head, I'd chime in more on the actual article. And the fact that someone is wrong on the internet is making me squirm. But, ya know...maybe that's just because I'm a perverted sex-fiend.

 

 

Of course, it's not the sort of argument one can win anyway. It's like "Have you stopped beating your spouse?"--the question implies guilt and makes any response by its nature defensive. So the questioner always wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Of course, it's not the sort of argument one can win anyway. It's like "Have you stopped beating your spouse?"--the question implies guilt and makes any response by its nature defensive. So the questioner always wins.

 

 

I actually used the same example the other day too. As my wife (a much cooler head) said, "Do you really think you can change the mind of someone like that?" No, I guess not.

 

I think one of the other things that keeps getting brought up in that post's comments is that the series (book or TV show) is not redemptive and not worth reading, and how someone without a Christian worldview can't (ultimately) creative something redemptive. That's troubling for a number of reasons (including how the commenter came to this conclusion after 150 pages), and one that's been discussed at length elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaaand no follow-up to the rape. In fact, the whole episode played like what happened was exactly what the director thought happened. Which doesn't speak well of his competence as a director, at least for that scene; I'm willing to give the production the benefit of the doubt and say that their intent is pretty clear, given how the most recent episode played out, but that creates a very serious tonal problem in that what everyone else saw is manifestly not what was intended. And since authorial intent doesn't get to dictate how to read what's actually on-screen, that scene could wind up being disastrous in terms of the overall season-arc. 

 

Doesn't ruin the show for me; I'm willing to write it off as a mistake and move on. But unless something changes in the next episode, it does constitute a fairly glaring error.

 

I think one of the other things that keeps getting brought up in that post's comments is that the series (book or TV show) is not redemptive and not worth reading, and how someone without a Christian worldview can't (ultimately) creative something redemptive. That's troubling for a number of reasons (including how the commenter came to this conclusion after 150 pages), and one that's been discussed at length elsewhere.

 

 

I've not even read that much of the book. But I tend to raise a skeptical eyebrow at the implication that a series or anything else has to be somehow "redemptive." Like, redemptive in what way? In that the good guys win? That's a fairly banal way to approach it. In that some Higher Power is evoked?

 

What if--just what if--the very act of storytelling is itself redemptive? What if gathering up the scraps and fragments of a disordered life and binding them between the pages of a book in all of their fragmentary disorder is itself a gambit against that disorder? Even a story that suggests that there is no meaning to life is attempting to evoke or create some sort of meaning (a novel, quoth Eco, is a machine for generating interpretations). As such, I'm skeptical of the claim that there can be any sort of narrative (or even non-narrative--some sort of communication) that isn't in some way redemptive. 

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How odd...just had the "sex scenes do not make a book/show/movie" pornography in multiple arenas this week.


"You know...not EVERY story has to be interesting." -Gibby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mario 3 would have been a better fit with the chiptune music, but still a clever video.

 

Edited by Tyler

It's the side effects that save us.
--The National, "Graceless"
Twitter Blog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This LARB piece is a thing of beauty

 

I began this season by praising Game of Thrones’s embroidery, which seems to me both an independent aesthetic pleasure and a meaningful parallel to the show’s complex narrative strategy of dancing in and out of alliance with a typical, sword and sorcery, epic plot. Costumes like Daenerys’s dress further this work. They are switch points between the show’s different viewing registers; because discussing them draws on the lived pleasures and experiences of viewers (who may have sewn; who watch award shows and have thoughts about Cher-like formalwear; who have had surprising sex and wondered what to wear after; who would like to ship Daenerys and Kate Middleton in addition to having spent a fair amount of time thinking about Hegel) they reveal that television becomes more political when it reaches a range of ways we understand the world. Dissecting dresses with friends not only helps your friendships, and makes shows more fun, it raises meaningful questions like: if Dany is so committed to freeing slaves,who is sewing those pleats?

 

[snip]

 

We see the show’s realism, too — and the literary critic in me knows I’m being a bit fast and loose with my genre categories here — in the show’s narrative entropy. Characters are spreading out, moving apart: it’s hard to know how this show will end. But if realism, or call it a kind of reality effect, has brought the show this far, it’s hard to see how the same impulse will reward us in future episodes. There needs to be some kind of resolution, some kind of reckoning. There needs to be some kind of connection. We need some side ties!

 

And lo: here they appear! If I’m partly reading the side ties of Dany’s dress so aggressively because it pleases me to do so, I also think that there’s somethere there: this episode satisfied me, as a viewer, because of its interest in unlikely connections.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in an earlier post, Jason Panella corrected predicted the climactic event of last night's episode 4.8 "The Mountain and the Viper." Alan Sepinwall's review snags the inevitable subtitle: "'Hello. My Name Is Oberyn Martell. You Killed My Sister. Prepare to Die.'" (spoilers for the entire episode).

 

Only two more episodes in s4! Despite its many problematic elements, GoT remains one of the few shows I watch for which an hour never seems quite long enough.


There is this difference between the growth of some human beings and that of others: in the one case it is a continuous dying, in the other a continuous resurrection. (George MacDonald, The Princess and Curdie)

Isn't narrative structure enough of an ideology for art? (Greg Wright)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll admit, going into the episode knowing (vaguely) what would happen, that last scene still shocked me like no other sequence in the series has.

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, considering tonight's ep was about the thing in fantasy that interests me least--it was still ok. The music was strange, in a way I can't quite put my finger on--almost like it was the score for a much rougher, less sleek fantasy, something from the eighties. There was one death that I did not expect, despite being pretty spoilered up....

 

Oh, and Samwell Tarley is the gooey sentimental heart of Game of Thrones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oh, and Samwell Tarley is the gooey sentimental heart of Game of Thrones

 

Oh yes, very.

 

I thought the episode was pretty great and unusual for a number of reasons. This is the only episode of the series that preserves any unity of place. Also, Neil Marshall's directing was pretty flashy, showing off the sets with some fairly long takes. His framing and the continuity was even more cinematic than normal as well. I thought it was pretty great.

 

Also, mammoths and giants. Awesome.

Also, as someone who has read the books, and assuming they are following the end of this season up the end of A STORM OF SWORDS, then the last episode of this season is going to be pretty jam packed.

Edited by Anders

"A director must live with the fact that his work will be called to judgment by someone who has never seen a film of Murnau's." - François Truffaut

Twitter.
Letterboxd.

Reviews and essays at Three Brothers Film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought the season finale was rushed. Tried to bring too many storylines to adjacent places and ended up feeling like the end of Return of the Jedi. (Danerys probably could have been left for next season, Aria's arrival on ship, too.)

Also, it felt...more like they had to explain everything to you. Like Aria arriving at the ship. No reason they couldn't cut after "valor morgulis," but they have to show 20 seconds of the ship going off to sea and her looking out to the horizon. 

I was okay with the changes from the text, mostly, though

Breanna just happening to come across Aria and the Hound

felt like a stretch. Just how big is Weseroos anyway? People always bumping into each other.on the road. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought the season finale was rushed. Tried to bring too many storylines to adjacent places and ended up feeling like the end of Return of the Jedi. (Danerys probably could have been left for next season, Aria's arrival on ship, too.)

Also, it felt...more like they had to explain everything to you. Like Aria arriving at the ship. No reason they couldn't cut after "valor morgulis," but they have to show 20 seconds of the ship going off to sea and her looking out to the horizon. 

I was okay with the changes from the text, mostly, though

Breanna just happening to come across Aria and the Hound

felt like a stretch. Just how big is Weseroos anyway? People always bumping into each other.on the road. 

 

I've read the books, too, but I suppose the majority of those who watch the show have not, so some of the "explaining" must be for those. If they had cut after Arya said "valor morgulis," I can imagine a lot of people left saying "What?" Even though I knew what came next, I was quite pleased to see the response & results, which Jaquen hadn't actually spelled out for her.

 

I'm not sure that

Brienne meeting Arya & the Hound

was a stretch as the show has been plotting things--one pair had just been to the Eyrie, the other pair were on their way there, so it's not unreasonable that they might be in the same general area. There's literary precedent, of course--Malory's  knights frequently run into each other randomly as they quest all over England (which is probably smaller than Westeros.)

 

In terms of changes, I was sorry to see

Jojen Reed die

, though I may understand why they made that choice. And I hope we'll see

the resurrected Catelyn/Lady Stoneheart

in season five, because Brienne still has some explaining to do.


There is this difference between the growth of some human beings and that of others: in the one case it is a continuous dying, in the other a continuous resurrection. (George MacDonald, The Princess and Curdie)

Isn't narrative structure enough of an ideology for art? (Greg Wright)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 And I hope we'll see

the resurrected Catelyn/Lady Stoneheart

in season five, because Brienne still has some explaining to do.

 

 

I've not read the books, of course, but in a late-season streak that was full of surprises for me, the biggest surprise was that the curtain-drop wasn't  Lady Stoneheart. It seemed like such an obvious cliffhanger. Then again, perhaps that's why they avoided it. 

 

Also, it's kind of a joke and kind of true that this was absolutely the best possible episode they could have played--in the U.S., at least--yesterday. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 And I hope we'll see

the resurrected Catelyn/Lady Stoneheart

in season five, because Brienne still has some explaining to do.

 

 

I've not read the books, of course, but in a late-season streak that was full of surprises for me, the biggest surprise was that the curtain-drop wasn't  Lady Stoneheart. It seemed like such an obvious cliffhanger. Then again, perhaps that's why they avoided it. 

 

Oh. Well, that explains it. [spoilerS, obvs]

 

EDIT: And, reaching waaaay back, here's Lena Headey on the controversial sequence from early in the season:

 

GoldDerby: I read and heard sort of two opinions sort of about this scene. Some people say, “well in the book it was a clearly consensual scene and they’ve gone off from the book said.” Others have been, “no, it sort of ended up being consensual in the show as well.” Do you have an opinion on that, whether this was a consensual act or not?

Headey: [Thinks about it.] This is a really tricky one because, you know, either way, anything I say I’m going to get slaughtered for.

GoldDerby: Yes. How did you play it? As an actress approaching it…

Headey: I came from this place of grieving and a need to feel connected and alive and you know, this is the only other person, probably the only person she has ever trusted in the world. And she’s shunned Jaime and he’s never stopped loving her and in that moment she’s embracing and she’s rejecting of him in the same breath and you know, if I had not have said “not now, not here,” you know, if there were silence I don’t know how people would have reacted, you know what I mean? But it’s tricky, man, because we could go into this for a long time, I could get personal, we could…you know what I mean? It’s a real fucker of a situation. And I also think, you know, without being too much of a twat about it, we’re talking about a show with dragons, incest, babies taken by zombies, you know…

GoldDerby: Do you think it was the right direction for the show to take with that scene? Do you think it was done…

Headey: Yes! I do, I stand by it absolutely and I think that it’s an interesting turning point for Jaime’s character, massively, because we’ve kind of despised him. You know, he killed a fucking child while shagging his sister and then we fell in love with him again and now this you know, this greatly divided scene has happened and it’s getting people talking and bringing up important, important conversations.

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alyssa Rosenberg reviews the season 4 finale, with a video commentary on the scene between Brienne & the Hound. I particularly liked this passage:

 

Given all the violence, anger and pain of the episode, when Arya spots a little port town and puts her heels to her horse, it is hard not to tense in expectation that something terrible awaits her. But there is a peace that is almost strange, given what we have been taught to expect of Westeros, to her departure. For once, no one wants to hurt Arya. For once, the resources and the secret language she have been taught by one of her many odd father figures serve her as they ought. When the captain tells Arya “Of course, you shall have a cabin,” that quiet little transaction takes on the gravity of a miracle. And as Arya finally stops looking away from her homeland, from the dream of her family and the ashes of her home, she can see the sun coming through the clouds.

 

“Game of Thrones” spends a great deal of time distinguishing the worlds it is set in from our own through the application of brutality. But on Father’s Day, in an episode characterized by rotten relationships between fathers and their children, the show knits itself to our present with a fragile skein of hope.

 

On the other hand, Maureen Ryan thinks that if the show doesn't start focusing more on characters and relationships than sex, violence, and spectacle, it will never be more than an entertainment.

 

"Game of Thrones'" excellence, however, is not dependent on its depictions of violence and assault, or epic showdowns and skeleton battles. I like to think that its popularity is due in large part to its attention to how the consequences of large and small events play out for complex, flawed, selfish, frightened and otherwise recognizable human beings.

...

If you want pointless, meandering misery porn, you can always watch "The Walking Dead." The reason "Game of Thrones" is orders of magnitude better than that show is because a scene of a young woman sitting on a hillside, contemplating her frenemy, is the one of the finest things this show has ever done.

 

I have never watched The Walking Dead, so I can't vouch for her assessment of that show, but I still think she has a point.


There is this difference between the growth of some human beings and that of others: in the one case it is a continuous dying, in the other a continuous resurrection. (George MacDonald, The Princess and Curdie)

Isn't narrative structure enough of an ideology for art? (Greg Wright)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, Maureen Ryan thinks that if the show doesn't start focusing more on characters and relationships than sex, violence, and spectacle, it will never be more than an entertainment.

Ryan has written a very strong essay there.  I appreciate how she points out what the show can do at its best, and how it ought to do better.  I'm with her on her suggestions for how the show can improve.  The moments where the actors are given opportunities to shine are also the same moments that give the show it's moral center.

 

In other related news, John Piper just discussed Game of Thrones, without, of course, having seen it:

... 6. Do I Care About the Souls of the Nudes?

God calls women to adorn themselves in respectable apparel with modesty and self-control (1 Timothy 2:9). When we pursue or receive or embrace nudity in our entertainment, we are implicitly endorsing the sin of the women who sell themselves to this way and are, therefore, uncaring about their souls. They disobey 1 Timothy 2:9, and we say that’s okay.

7. Would I Be Glad If My Daughter Played This Role?

Most Christians are hypocrites in watching nudity because, on the one hand they say by their watching that this is okay, and on the other hand they know deep down they would not want their daughter or their wife or their girlfriend to be playing this role. That is hypocrisy ...

 

Some of this is unintentionally funny, but I'm not posting this here just so that we can all make fun of it.  I actually have a great respect and appreciation for Piper, even when I disagree with him.  But I think the fact that this was just posted days ago, at the same time when other critics are discussing whether the spectacle/sex/nudity in Game of Thrones goes too far, is interesting.  I believe Piper's essay here is ignorant of both church history and of the history of art.  It typifies a default response in the church that is, among other things, completely ineffectual.  And, even worse, it is completely ineffectual precisely at the moment when a large collection of critics are asking moral questions about sex and entertainment related to the show.  Ought there not to be someone in the church offering healthy, robust, and informed answers to these moral questions - actually participating in the public discussion of the show?  The worst thing about Piper's response is not, to me, so much the absolutism of the position he sincerely takes here, but how it knocks him right out of a real conversation that is genuinely taking place right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pardon my asking, but is all the nudity on this show female? One of the very few HBO shows I have seen is Rome, and there was nudity of both genders in that one. (I can't recall there being all *that* much nudity, even of the female variety, in Big Love, the other HBO show I've seen. There was some, sure, but nothing to write home about. At least not that I can recall.)

 

It just bugs me how people always frame this discussion in terms of daughters/wives/girlfriends.


"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Pardon my asking, but is all the nudity on this show female?

 

There's definitely a fair bit of male nudity. 

 

 

True. Though, to be fair, there's a bit less "sexposition" with males. There is a critique to be made here, since the female body is sexualized to a far greater extent, socially, than the male body [i.e. upper male nudity is eroticized/fetishized, but not nearly to the extent that upper female nudity is--you can have a scene with a bunch of shirtless dudes and no one bats an eye, but throw in one woman and suddenly the whole thing is sexualized]...but, on the other hand, [a] the amount of nudity has been, I think, exaggerated, and much of it simply isn't erotic. [And even if it were--etc etc etc].

 

Full confession: I have no patience with Piper and haven't since I realized that his "glory of God" formulation is essentially vacuous code-speak for "stuff I wanted to do already." And his article is absolute rubbish--the same leering moral hectoring that I complained about earlier in this thread. Is it really too much to ask that he not start with the presupposition that everyone who watches the show is a drooling perv? And his questions are classic question-begging:

 

 

1. Am I Recrucifying Christ? [...] It is an absolute travesty of the cross to treat it as though Jesus died only to forgive us for the sin of watching nudity, and not to purify us for the power not to watch it.

 

Question begged: is watching nudity [mind you, this is watching, not--I dunno, you fill in the blank] a sin? What about National Geographic [meh, Piper's the kind of person that would call it National Pornographic, anyway]? What about accidentally glimpsing it? What about staring in the mirror for a second after getting out of the shower? What about the subliminal naked woman in The Rescuers

 

3. When Will I Tear Out My Eye, If Not Now?

Seeing naked women — or seeing naked men — causes a man or woman to sin with their minds and their desires, and often with their bodies. 

 

 

There's your pervy undercurrent. In Manhunter, there's a lovely scene where William Peterson as Will Graham is trying to get inside the mind of the Tooth Fairy, and it becomes apparent that Graham himself gets a weird, almost sick thrill out of imagining his way into the murderer's head [which is why Hannibal is able to assert that they--he and Will--are so much the same].  Piper reminds me of that. Unfortunately, I can't find the clip online, so this will have to do:

 

 

The rest is similar banal nonsense, mostly about how eeeevul nudity is. But then there's this:

 

11. Am I Craving Acceptance?

No, what keeps those Christians coming back is the fear that if they take Christ at his word and make holiness as serious as I am saying it is, they would have to stop seeing so many television shows and so many movies, and they would be viewed as freakish. And that today is the worst evil of all. To be seen as freakish is a much greater evil than to be unholy.

Because there's no way  anyone could disagree with John Piper's evaluation without obviously trying to look cool for the hip kids. 

The bigger problem here is this practice of making a question of aesthetics the subject of pastoral advice. It's one of the reasons I've pretty much given up on most expressions of "Christian" culture or sub-culture, because the relative quality of a work is subsumed under the question of whether Chrisians "should" view it. Rubbish to that.  Dispensing pastoral advice in the guise of cultural criticism [with the added sting of "If any of what I said makes you doubtful--as it should--then you should do what I say. So there."] makes both very bad pastoral advice and absolutely terrible cultural criticism. 

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Pardon my asking, but is all the nudity on this show female?

 

There's definitely a fair bit of male nudity. 

 

 

True. Though, to be fair, there's a bit less "sexposition" with males. There is a critique to be made here, since the female body is sexualized to a far greater extent, socially, than the male body [i.e. upper male nudity is eroticized/fetishized, but not nearly to the extent that upper female nudity is--you can have a scene with a bunch of shirtless dudes and no one bats an eye, but throw in one woman and suddenly the whole thing is sexualized]...but, on the other hand, [a] the amount of nudity has been, I think, exaggerated, and much of it simply isn't erotic. [And even if it were--etc etc etc].

 

 

This article from Salon won't placate John Piper, and since I don't want be be "erotically catered to," I don't really buy into it either, but it does delineate the differences between GoT's use of male & female nudity to explain why/how "'Game of Thrones' fails the female gaze: Why does prestige TV refuse to cater erotically to women?" GoT is the only show I watch on HBO, but I suspect it's not really unusual in this aspect. Camelot on Starz was much the same (though the writing & plotting were much, much worse), the Tudors, Rome...?


There is this difference between the growth of some human beings and that of others: in the one case it is a continuous dying, in the other a continuous resurrection. (George MacDonald, The Princess and Curdie)

Isn't narrative structure enough of an ideology for art? (Greg Wright)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...