Tag: Emilia Clarke

Game of Thrones – Season 8 – First Half – review

Game of Thrones – Season 8 – First Half – review

The last series of Game of Thrones is turning out to be a powerful combination of moving and thrilling cinema. I don’t think it should be considered television. That is too meager of a medium to describe the accomplishment. The scope of this series is so vast, and the concluding episodes show such beautiful cinematography, that it simply has to be called a long form work of cinema. Yes, HBO has produced it. Still, Emilia Clarke’s acting is so much more expressive, subtle, and powerful than the large quantity of garbage sent to multiplex theaters that I prefer to accept Game of Thrones as cinema rather than the Avengers movies.

The series is so filmic that it almost rediscovers film. This is a medium that is in serious need of fixing in the 21st century. Film has largely been withering under the force of even worse commercialism than before, tiny screens with junk social media content for an increasingly dumbed down and artistically numb population. Cinema needs a shot of life with new ideas and new perspective. Game of Thrones is closer to that than most films, though to be fair, cheaper distribution and digital production for smaller works has allowed for some good independent filmmaking to exist. The vision of this series though is truly cinematic while its dramatic portrayals are subtle and complex. Added to that is a willingness to challenge social norms and conventions, to slay sacred cows, that makes it one of the few challenging 21st century cinematic works.

The long running time of the series allows for Shakespearean stories of fights for power, fatal downfalls, and twisted intentions to get real life on the screen. That allows for Game of Thrones to reflect the world we live in better than most films can ever touch. The sheer lack of subversiveness in cinema as a medium has by contrast become frightening as it prevents organic real life from slipping in, replaced by cold technological simulations that are designed to please bureaucrats and consumers rather than human beings. Where Alfred Hitchcock once delved into psychology most would deem untouchable for the screen in Vertigo, today film is so absurdly scared to upset the powerful that the legal system is misrepresented as being just, reliable, and rule bound in spite of voluminous factual empirical evidence to the contrary, while rich authoritarians are made to look good in almost every movie. Then there is Game of Thrones.

In a masterwork, we see the powerful laid bare as corrupt, psychotic, perverse, stupid, and greedy in a way that American culture tries very hard not to admit. If HBO is able to air such original ideas, their production team for the series should be accepted as one of the only good parts of 21st century cinema. The first half of the final series has brought us to complex character dynamics with hints of resolution to some long conflicts, but the show does not go to the point of wrapping things up neatly. It brings resolutions alongside questions and still more dynamics of conflict and far reaching motivation. The willingness to not shy from controversy but to instead portray popular and powerful people as depraved and mentally deranged just like they really are is perhaps given more life by being shown in the home thanks to HD broadcasting. 

There is no concern about pleasing movie theaters or having a big glitzy and expensive opening weekend. Instead, there are hours and hours of very good acting and complex screenwriting. We see portrayals that challenge our perceptions of people in power around us, and we recognize truth. While America’s Attorney General is accused of committing a crime under the law by the Speaker of the House for lying to the U.S. Congress about a criminal investigation of the President, Americans are able to see themselves as being ruled by plotting idiots very similar to Cersei Lannister on HBO’s excellent television series. Game of Thrones has a subversive way of showing that American culture has become so corrupt that people are ruled by deranged people with fat stomaches and excited genitalia instead of honorable, intelligent, wise, just, or competent people. Much like Game of Thrones, violence perpetrated by the rich against everyone else has become the normal state of life.

If cinema were willing to go there the same way as David Benioff, D.B. Weiss, and Emilia Clarke it might have a chance of becoming a relevant artistic medium again, the way it used to be when George Romero made Dawn of the Dead as a rich allegory of American consumerism ultimately destroying all of us, and the way that people have to discover now by watching restored classics instead of new movies filled with CGI, pablum, and dialogue written for people so attached to their phone screens that they are unable to distinguish between fact and fiction any longer, a serious limitation that makes superhero movies very popular with the general population. For Game of Thrones, we instead get a gritty view of life where power and money have corrupted everyone of prominence. To some fans of the show, the Night King seemed like a savior for that very reason.

The beautiful third episode though, halfway through the final series, has brought us his death at the hands of the diminutive Arya Stark. It suggests power in the hands of the smaller and the weak, a principle of democracy entering the show in the background of a series that has shown us so much of how corrupt and depraved the powerful really are, with obsessions for gold and sex with their own family members or less powerful people very close to them much like politicians, businessmen, and academic leaders of today behave. While the powerful in America threaten journalists, point fingers at each other, frame their critics, and abuse logic to manufacture twisted lies and propaganda in desperate efforts to obfuscate their own corruption and abuse of power, Game of Thrones shows us the truth about rich and powerful predators who can’t wait to sink their teeth into everybody else just to steal more stuff.

Money is what really rules Westeros, and those who follow ethics and strive to be virtuous and to help other people pay the price for it. Sophie Turner’s portrayal of Sansa Stark showed us this as the meek and kind child of the just Ned Stark was brutally tormented by the rich and powerful Ramsay, a person of little intellect and no virtue but instead violent obscene power, much like the heads of organizations in our own society. We love the Stark family, because they stand up for normal people and virtue and don’t bow to wealth. 

The first two episodes of this last season of Game of Thrones set up the middle war episode deftly. They offered subtle character developments. We see the side of especially Jon and Dany along with their companions preparing for the worst and trying to form bonds with people they care for. That effort to care about each other in conflict is what made the first two episodes so very moving. The biggest revelation is Jon’s lineage making him a Targaryen and heir to the iron throne. Hopefully the show will have him and Dany decide that it doesn’t matter, because the iron throne is not worth very much after all. It’s too bloody, to corrupt, too vicious to matter as much as people being just and caring for one another.

Game of Thrones – Season 7 – review

Game of Thrones – Season 7 – review

With Game of Thrones about to air its final season, it’s an exciting time to think back on the series as we await the conclusion. The George R. R. Martin derived series has become one of the most successful dramatic works of the 21st century. It’s taken seriously both aesthetically and as cult entertainment and has even revived interest in medieval storytelling.  Emilia Clarke as Daenerys Targaryen is one of the most enigmatic and interesting personalities to be put on the screen, and the high quality cinematography and expansive dramatic situations do a lot to suggest that HD streaming series can compete with film both on aesthetics and dramatic storytelling.

The extremely long running time that a series affords allows for more dramatic development than a film can permit, and Game of Thrones has used this expertly. The series is typically exciting to watch in anticipation of what happens next, but the beauty of it is that this happens in the sense of character development rather than typical Hollywood action as what we anticipate. There is a great deal of subtlety and depth to the portrayal of characters in Game of Thrones. In particular, Cersei Lanister has shown the excesses and horrors of a twisted personality in ways that would be hard to imagine in most dramatic works. There is a psychological richness to this that adds to Game of Thrones as a work of art and cultural achievement as well as entertainment.

With series seven complete and about to give way to the series’ conclusion, we can see paths charted out by these characters that reach very rich depths. Cersei started as someone who seemed innocuous in the first series. As King Robert Baratheon’s wife, she was on the sidelines too much for us to know at first how manipulative and destructive her character would become. As things unfolded though, we saw Cersei whittle away at any shred of decency the kingdom might have had in what would have been only a small way anyhow. Series seven saw her becoming desperate to hold the kingdom that she took control of by destroying so many people. The beginning of a rupture between her and her brother, Jamie, opens exciting possibilities and questions, both in terms of the show’s resolution and in terms of her own psychology starting to fracture. Cersei is so deeply twisted that it’s hard to find much of a personality with consistent values within her. She loves power, corruption, and destruction as much as a depraved politician, and we don’t see anything that is important to her besides that other than having sex with her brother. It’s an interesting twist of perversion becoming dementia that happens in a show that might have been positive towards fetishism like the great band the Lords of Acid are, but instead we see the medieval world unveiling perverse insanity through Cersei.

The shocks that go with the series follow a true medieval logic of shock and horror. This became the precedent of the time partly from kings using terror to maintain and structure their power over kingdoms. They used depraved and shocking violence to woo the population into submission. This is why torture was practiced, and it was used to produce so much shock that the populace would fear the king rather than rebel against being oppressed, as Michel Foucault so excellently charted out in his masterwork, Discipline and Punish. The show takes two basic possibilities of ruling. One involves the use of violence to control people and amass wealth, the model America follows as it abuses poor people very regularly through corrupt scheming with the wealthy. This has led to the show creating great excitement about how accurate it is in portraying contemporary times. The other possibility involves the use of power to support average people and represent their interests in order to raise up society. That model of power doesn’t really exist in the corrupt world of today, but on the show Daenerys and Jon Snow represent this as they fight for larger ideas of justice and protect people who support them. It is likely part of why so many people love the show and identify with its two heroes in great preference to their own crooked leaders. 

Jon Snow stands in series seven with a new alliance between him and Daenerys that is brought on both by necessity and good intentions. They see a common desire for justice and and a personal need to actually help the people who support them that leads them to fight together. They also see practical advantages of dealing both with an army of undead people and with Cersei. Magic and mysticism imbue both characters. In the case of Jon, it is through his having been revived from the dead. With Daenerys, it’s through her dragons. The dragons are somewhat up in the air now in how they will impact the show. This was a base of power and uniqueness for Daenerys throughout the whole series, but now a dragon has been taken by the Night King and turned into one of the undead. So we can anticipate an epic fight over this.

The character of Daenerys really is the show’s best invention, and it is somewhat unique to the series more than the books, because the character is so tied to Emilia Clarke’s dramatic portrayal. She is the most just character on the show and the only one who seems to be inspired by something that isn’t at all common. One of the better sides of medieval life and aesthetics was an appreciation for exceptional things, an idea that was often captured by nobility, kings, and varying views of god or magic. Emilia Clarke’s character places that idea in a much larger and otherworldly place by suggesting that she is divinely inspired. This also fits the medieval world well.

One advantage to living in the medieval world was that population sizes were far smaller and distractions far less. There was no environmental crisis in that era. A major reason to be disappointed by industrial civilization is that while we are told propaganda about higher standards of life, in reality resources have been depleted while populations have boomed to a noisy, nonsensical, and unsustainable level while the wealthy horde the planet’s stolen resources. Daenerys wants a more just world, and this is why so many people of today love her, but she does better than that. She wants justice all around. The beauty of the show and her characterization through Emlia Clarke’s slightly removed performance, made to suggest that she is in touch with higher powers like a sort of Joan of Arc (a character of great cinematic lineage through Jacques Rivette and Carl Dreyer), is that we see all of the enigma that goes along with that. She wants justice, and she knows that part of it involves a world of far more equality and less oppression, but she doesn’t know all the specifics of what justice really is. She is inspired by it but also admits that it is hard to define, and this is her greatest relevancy in portraying a just ruler.

By associating her with dragons in Game of Thrones, we see that there is a mystical side to wanting a better world. The good isn’t described by what everyone around her wants or normal human conventions, because the people around her are too corrupt to know what anything good is in the great game of thrones with so many players. Daenerys looks above herself and everyone else to get a sense as to what would be better. She wants to rule Westeros, because medieval conventions of divine bloodlines give her a reason to think that the throne belongs to her, but she also wants to rule simply because she knows she would be less corrupted than others and would do something better, whatever it turns out to be, something that is predictable based on her lack of selfishness. 

George R. R. Martin has fused magic, mysticism, fantasy, and politics in an exciting way that captures the flare of the medieval world very well. Game of Thrones has taken this and shown us endless political allegories placed in the context of very complex character development, but it has also managed to keep the fantastical on the edge of the world of Westeros. It allows for Game of Thrones to be magical without being overtaken by it. That’s a far better accomplishment than what Peter Jackson was able to do with Lord of the Rings. Rather than hitting us over the head with supernaturalism, we see glimpses and hints of it that fit the way medievalists were far more obsessed with magic and divine things than people of the present and how it also affected the way that people actually live and the wild world of corrupt politics around them.

The medieval world also had a real sense of physical things and tangible stuff. Unlike the carefully structured unreality of the present day world where people are surrounded by propaganda, fake news, and distracting electronic screens all built by money and greed, the medieval world Game of Thrones recreates snippets of so carefully as it deconstructs power relations actually had tangible objects. So when someone bought a chair it was made by nearby craftsmen instead of factories in China with the profits going to billionaires, and even though people were ruled by kings, it was at least a physical person in a nearby building rather than a psychotic person thousands of miles away propped up by tools of war so violent that nuclear weapons designed to incinerate the entire earth are stockpiled by the violent and insane leaders of today.

At the same time, kings were violent in maintaining their rule, and the population was treated as a game with people to exploit, much like they are today. So the endless comparisons of the old world before capitalism and democracy shown in Game of Thrones and the present are quite fascinating to unravel. I do suspect that medieval storytelling may gain even more popularity as people get ever more sick of their electronically controlled busy and false lives. The medieval approach of seeing a forest by walking out into an actual physical one is in many ways more attractive than the popular method of today in which people just look at a photo app, but it’s too bad there aren’t any dragons to save us.


A few days after this was posted, Emlia Clarke authored a very moving piece in The New Yorker about suffering from a brain injury. After the first season of Game of Thrones was completed, she nearly died of a brain aneurysm. It was a tragic and painful close call involving multiple surgeries and two serious aneurysms. One surgery fixed an artery less invasively by working a probe up through her circulatory system. Things later got worse with a second brain artery rupturing and nearly killing her. That led to invasive surgery which removed part of her skull to access her brain and repair the damage. She suffered tremendous pain and loss of memory and personal characteristics and did not know if she would survive. The sad tragic nature of the story deserves a mention here, because it adds still more to the character of Daenerys and the inspiring power of the show.

The cinematic persona she most resembles is Joan of Arc, especially the Carl Dreyer version in The Passion of Joan of Arc. Dreyer’s Joan suffers, yet is innocent and more than anything someone unusually inspired. She inspires the best in others, and there is a poetic resonance with such a powerful background story for Emila Clarke. She shaped her experiences into something positive by both recovering and starting a charity to help others with the same condition. Her charity is called SameYou, because brain injury can cause people to lose their identity, not know who they even are, and lose much of what made them their former selves. The terror of traumatic brain injury leaves many people uncomfortable with talking about it, and her charity is aimed at changing that and offering assistance. It’s also worth noting that she was in the last days of her health insurance when the near death injury requiring invasive surgery happened, and in the United States many people don’t have health insurance still. The ability to pay for treatment can be a life or death consideration with brain injuries, and her charity is calling attention to something very important.