There are two overly long sequences of Dothraki threatening to sexually assault Daenerys in the season six premiere of Game of Thrones. We could’ve gotten to the narrative point of her being told she must join the Dosh Khaleen without brown men threatening to rape a white woman over and over.
But there’s something far more upsetting happening, something that impacts an actual real-life human, actress Emelia Clarke.
Serious fans of the show know that a few seasons ago Clarke made it known that she would not do any more nude scenes. There’s nothing inherently wrong with doing nude scenes, but obviously the actress doesn’t feel comfortable doing them and her wishes should be respected.So the lengthy sequence where Khaal Moro threatens to rip her clothes off is metatextual. It’s toying with the viewers’ knowledge that Clarke doesn’t want to be seen naked. It taunts us, and her saying, “we know she doesn’t consent but let’s see if we can force her anyway, because the collective and assumed straight male gaze has the power.“
We are asked to root against the actresses’ wishes. Even though she is not striped in this scene her autonomy is insulted.
That’s sexist as hell. Emilia Clarke deserves better.
Contrast this with the artistically and plot significant nudity of Melisandre in this episode. Actress Carice Von Houten has said in interviews she has no problem being nude on screen. The reveal of Melisandre’s body in this episode is significant and clearly not a source of discomfort for the actress.That makes all the difference.
There is nothing inherently wrong in wanting to see somebody naked. It’s one of the most common human desires. But there is something wrong in wanting to see somebody naked who does not want to be seen naked.
When Clarke played Holly Golightly in a Broadway production of Breakfast In Tiffany’s she had to deal with theater goers trying to take her picture during a bath scene. It was a significant enough problem that the theater had to increase security. The bathtub scene on Broadway was even set up to avoid showing her fully nude. After being perved on by theater goers no wonder Clarke doesn’t want to deal with this shit.
Let’s hope the rest of Season 6 respects it’s actors.When Emilia Clarke as Daenerys Targaryen emerged from the flames at the end of Season 6 Episode 4 we all cheered.
And then I realized I would need to go online and explain why her nudity in that scene is totally fine and why my earlier critique of the will-she-or-won’t-she BS in the season premiere still stands.
So here’s the deal:
The actress was vocal and enthusiastic about appearing nude in service to the plot of this particular episode. She makes a distinction between nudity that she is comfortable with doing and nudity that she is not comfortable doing. This scene was shot on a closed set.
The purpose of this scene was to demonstrate her character’s power. Appearing nude as a god-like figure before bowing legions (of not just brown people this time thank god) is entirely different then being forcibly stripped of your clothing by rapists, which was what the earlier episode was teasing at.
Remember, my central argument here was around the show’s treatment of the actress as a worker. It really sounds like the show did what it needed to make her feel comfortable on the set for this.
Clarke said in interviews:
The new scene is a demonstration of her character’s power. The scene in the first episode of the season was men teasing her about her powerlessness.
Context: It Makes All The Difference
Category: Uncategorized
You’ve probably answered this a million times before, but is House Bolton stronger than House Manderly (in terms of resources, money, levies)? Thanks
If we’re talking about just the Houses, not the Boltons and the Freys and Roose’s uncertain allies…House Manderly is significantly stronger than House Bolton in the Year 298 AC.
And as I’ll argue in my upcoming bonus essays, this is deliberate on the part of House Stark, which has pursued a policy of containment vs. the Boltons for thousands of years. Hence the close relationship with the Umbers, hence the creation of the Karstarks and the Greystarks, hence the Wolf’s Den, hence the Manderlys and White Harbor.
Controlling the mouth of the North is an endless bonanza, and judging from Bran II ACOK and Davos II ADWD, Wyman Manderly knows how to use it.
I’m going to talk about this more in my Davos III ADWD essay when I finally finish the damn thing (like with Tyrion V ADWD, it’s genuinely intimidating to write about), but: the Manderlys’ self-conception as the guardians of the North and the Starks, as rooted in both geography and history, represents a triumph of assimilation meant to dovetail with Davos’ rise, allowing for the political empathy he and Wylla express in the Merman’s Court. Wyman’s list of titles is basically a microcosm of this, especially “defender of the dispossessed.”
Can’t wait to read it!
And I love that title of Wyman’s, because it so encapsulates the Manderly identity and M.O: taking a stand on behalf of what’s right, but very much from a position of enlightened self-interest.
(Season 6 spoilers) So it seems like we’re getting ‘Bastardbowl’ between Jon and Ramsay, which is a sort of reverse-retread of the end of ADWD, except that Stannis is dead (among many other differences/accelerated plots). What does this mean for your predictions of the outcome of the Battle of Ice/Battle of Winterfell in TWOW? Does Ramsay survive and flee back to the Dreadfort? What else do you think the first few episodes have revealed re. the broad strokes of what happens in TWOW?
My predictions stand. The main difference is that Benioff and Weiss took out Stannis and put Jon in his place, because they never really liked or understood Stannis and like the more traditionally heroic Jon Snow.
What is the difference between tax farming and collecting rents in the context of Westeros? Like for the smallfolk in the Crownlands, would I deal with a tax collector (to pay taxes to the king) and an overseer (if I live on lands owned by the king)? What about in other regions? Sorry if this is a really silly question or if I am misunderstanding something. My English is not the best.
There’s quite a few differences.
- Who you pay: in traditional feudal taxes and rent, you’re paying to the lord of the fief, who is bound by recriprocal feudal obligations, the custom of noblesse oblige, and a certain long-term interest in keeping his tenants a going concern. With tax–farming, you’re dealing with a middleman who is bound by nothing and has no long-term interests at all, since tax-farming contracts are usually strictly time-limited.
- How much you pay: traditional feudal taxes and rents were fixed by custom and law, and usually recorded as well. While this had the effect of making past injustices very hard to shift, it also meant stability and predictability. Tax-farmers, by contrast, paid for their contract through an auction process, were looking to turn a profit on their investment, and could impose whatever rates they wanted to – which meant higher rates and substantial unpredictability.
- What you pay: a lot of feudal taxes and rents were either in kind or in the form of labor, which is handy when you’re a farmer who has lots of agricultural produce but not much cash on hand. Tax-farmers are far less interested in going through the messy process of storing and selling these goods, and tend to want cash on hand, which is not good for farmers.
There’s also an issue of sub-infeudation – i.e, the layering of land ownership from king down to lord to lesser lord to knight to peasant. So normally in the Crownlands you would pay your rent and your taxes to your local knight or lord, and then they’d pay their feudal taxes to their liege lord, who pays their taxes to the lord of the principle house, who pays their taxes to the king.
If you lived on the King’s own land as opposed to lands that he gives out as fiefs to the various lords of the Crownlands, you have a simplified system where you pay your taxes and rents directly to the King as your liege lord. Unless the king sells the right to collect to some tax farmer…
Is guest right as a custom of conduct totally obliterated now? I mean, Tywin basically paved the way of fearing even “safe” events in the contemporary era, but are there ways to rebuild it?
It’s severely damaged, but it depends on how society at large reacts. If we look at the Northern lords in Winterfell, or the “put up your steel, ser! Are you a Corbray or a Frey? We are guests here,” from Bronze Yohn in the Vale, it seems like the reaction is to recoil in horror and reinforce the custom…by hanging the Freys en masse if necessary.
You’ve probably answered this a million times before, but is House Bolton stronger than House Manderly (in terms of resources, money, levies)? Thanks
If we’re talking about just the Houses, not the Boltons and the Freys and Roose’s uncertain allies…House Manderly is significantly stronger than House Bolton in the Year 298 AC.
And as I’ll argue in my upcoming bonus essays, this is deliberate on the part of House Stark, which has pursued a policy of containment vs. the Boltons for thousands of years. Hence the close relationship with the Umbers, hence the creation of the Karstarks and the Greystarks, hence the Wolf’s Den, hence the Manderlys and White Harbor.
Chapter-by-Chapter Analysis: Catelyn I, ASOS
Chapter-by-Chapter Analysis: Catelyn I, ASOS
She was a widow, a traitor, a grieving mother, and wise, wise in the ways of the world. Synopsis: Catelyn is put under house arrest at her own urging, comes to a realization about her father, gets some news about Robb, and gets into a fight with Edmure. All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way… SPOILER WARNING: This chapter analysis, and all following, will…
When can we expect the new chapter-by-chapter analysis for ASOS?
In about an hour.
I’ve heard complains that Captain America never undergoes character development. He starts the films believing in some things, and at the end of them he still believes the same. This seems to be specially true when you compare him to, say, Iron Man, who changes a lot between the start and the end of the movies he appears in.
I don’t think staying true to yourself is the same thing as not undergoing character development. And I don’t necessarily agree with either characterization.
In CA: First Avenger, Steve Rogers goes from a skinny kid on Brooklyn who wants more than anything to do his bit for a cause he believes in, to America’s bond drive mascot, to actually becoming a real leader rather just a figurehead, and then suddenly loses everyone he’s ever loved and becomes a Man Out of Time.
In CA: Winter Soldier, Steve Rogers starts the film as a company man, obeying orders because that’s what he’s used to, and ends up as a rebel bringing down the national security state. He also starts out the film as a Man Out of Time who doesn’t know how to adapt to civilian life or the present and ends the film as someone who’s made important friends – Nat and Sam – and has found a purpose in life (finding Bucky).
In CA: Civil War, Steve Rogers starts the film as an Avenger contentedly leading his team, and then has to choose between keeping his team together and doing what’s right, and then choosing between Tony and Bucky. By the end of the film, he’s lost Peggy Carter, he’s essentially resigned as Captain America by leaving the shield with Tony, his friendship with Tony is permanently damaged, Bucky has lost a limb and becomes a Popsicle, and he’s a wanted fugitive. And he’s now in a nascent relationship with Sharon Carter.
By contrast, I think Tony’s got some real issues with making permanent changes in his life – he built a bunch of weapons and then realized that was wrong, so he built some new ones and then realized that was wrong when his tech was turned against him, first by Obadiah Stane and then by Ivan Vanko. Then he built a bunch more and realized that was unhealthy and blew them all up in Iron Man 3. Then he went back on his promise and built a bunch more and built Ultron. He comes right out and says it in Civil War – he didn’t stop because he doesn’t want to stop.
Crazy/Joke Theory About 6×4
Given the obvious presence of accelerant in the fire at the temple of the dosh khaleen, I think Dany survived by dousing herself in ether as a retardant. Ether burns off, she walks out unscathed.
RFTIT Tumblr Backup 