Game of Thrones: Season 6, Episode 9 - "Battle of the Bastards"

Mark W. Pleiss

"Battle of the Bastards" may have satisfied the age-old bloodlust for war; unfortunately, it did so through the more recent tradition of dramatizing, aestheticizing, and making war cool.

Game of Thrones

Airtime: Sundays, 9pm
Cast: Peter Dinklage, Lena Headey, Emilia Clarke, Kit Harington, Sophie Turner, Iain Glen, Maisie Williams
Subtitle: Season 6, Episode 9 - "Battle of the Bastards"
Network: HBO
Air date: 2016-06-19

The ninth episode of the sixth season of HBO’s Game of Thrones featured the catharsis and carnage of the "greatest" war films of the current century and the previous one.

The program opened with a dragon-led fire-bombing of a naval fleet, and concluded with a 25-minute sequence of mass slaughter between warring armies.

The episode unquestionably satisfied the bloodlust and desire for bodies and war that have persisted since Gladiatorial contests in the Colosseum, but it also took part in a more recent tradition of dramatizing war, aestheticizing it, and ultimately making it cool.

And therein lies the problem.

Any fan of the show has by now accepted several unspoken contracts about what he or she will see each week. Game of Thrones is a fantasy epic that provides front-row seats to extreme experiences of violence, sexuality, vengeance, and anarchy. For some, the viewing pleasure derives from its role as an outlet for repressed human fantasies and desires, while others are potentially driven to the escapism of dragons, magic, and fictional geographies.

To judge a creative work fairly is to judge it by the rules it sets for itself. To impose critical opinions that are incongruent with the basic premises of the show is like criticizing a soccer game because the players didn't use their hands.

Thus, "Battle of the Bastards" played by the rules and did so magnificently. The show gave audiences exactly what it wanted: a classic thriller format that made palms sweat and stomachs turn with violent pyrotechnics and jerking roller-coaster movements.

It provided the emotional release viewers desire on the eve of another work week, and it gave everyone something to talk about until the following week's ride on the Game of Thrones express.

Commentators have rightly suggested that this episode and season are certain to receive awards, but they should be careful not to justify this position with a dubious moral argument commonly used for programs like this one that stake their identity in war and violence.

The idea of a show "glorifying war" has become something of a cultural piñata. Films like Saving Private Ryan receive awards because they purportedly don't "glorify war" (like those other movies), but instead to project images that convince people war is a bad idea.

Through the accumulation of maimed and tortured bodies, the argument goes, the public learns that war isn't an honorable practice, but something reprehensible that only leads to dead sons, crying mothers, and flags placed over lowering caskets.

The ninth episode of the sixth season of Game of Thrones indeed doesn't glorify war, but I'm not sure any creative work has since ancient times.

It does something more insidious.

It uses classic storytelling techniques and modern cinematographic technology to aestheticize violence. In other words, it makes war into entertainment and art.

The problem with confusing war and art stems from a simple principle. A representation of reality isn't actual reality. That is, a romantic comedy has little to do with love, a detective novel teaches nothing about police work, and a war film -- no matter how real it makes it -- isn't real war.

Its endgame, therefore, isn't to depict the horrors of war. The goal is to sell tickets.

Television and movies are cut, choreographed, and written to achieve certain effects. Even films that borrow real footage from battle scenes organize the images, edit them, and place them strategically within a larger narrative. Regardless of the technique, however, the outcome is always the same.

They make violence cool and war even cooler. Take for example Jon Snow (Kit Harington) and his victory over Ramsay Bolton (Iwan Rheon).

The battle perfectly follows the architecture of melodrama because it uses easy binomial distinctions of good versus evil. Jon Snow, the iconic epic hero, has a name that signifies purity and good.

He is also a Christ-like figure because he is the possible "savior" of humanity from the White Walkers; he's even returned from the dead. Moreover, Snow is irresistible to women -- even witches; he's a superhero with a sword and possesses superhuman strength, as seen in his harrowing escape from drowning in a pile of dead bodies.

Bolton, the quintessential bad guy, is a ludic psychopath with a strange obsession with violent sexuality and an unquenchable thirst for power. He kills his father, rapes women, and castrates men.

He doesn't possess the ability to unite, like his competitor, but uses cunning and a unique ability to set traps and manipulate his enemies.

The battle between them is the ancient battle of good over evil. Like many films and television programs about war, the show uses the cliché wherein the villain is about to lose but suddenly another bad guy, an old friend, comes and saves the day with another army.

Additionally, the show cleans up war. Sure it has all the departed limbs and sprays of blood and screams, but one must not forget what happens to Snow's face right after the battle.

After beating Ramsay half to death with his hands, Snow's face is covered in dirt and blood. But the following scene -- only a few seconds later -- his face is completely clean.

Did he leave the battle scene, shower, and come right back? No hero can look the woman he protects in the eye with a dirty face. Such an act would be worthy of war, but not the artistic representation of it.

War was sanitized to stay true to the heroism and the melodrama central to the show. Did it glorify war? Of course not. Too many people died to prove that.

It did something worse.

This isn't a Vietnam-era movie that exposes the true injustices of war. Game of Thrones focuses on a heroic and romanticized few with everything to gain from the slaughter of thousands.

The episode does exactly what it's supposed to do, but it doesn't demystify or descralize war. Instead, its carefully choreographed projection of violence makes it cool to kill people perceived as enemies, brandish weapons of war, and fight and die for values rooted in chivalric codes and ancient promises, but never in truth.

The show will likely win big awards in the months to come, but we shouldn't be blind to what it is and what it does. We also shouldn't pretend that it and other shows like it don't mirror the actions of real cultures with easy access to weapons, war, and others to blame.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.