Game of Thrones

The War of the Roses and goings-on on the Apennine Peninsula under the Borgias in fantasy garb in the shape of a saga for which the label “fantasy" is too restrictive, even if it didn’t seem so to begin with. Nobody with spiky ears, no dwarves, orcs or similar critters. But we do get numerous living, non black-and-white characters (primarily Claudio... um Tyrion, who is head and shoulders above the rest) and politicians. Tons and tons of politics and tons and tons of intrigues, plotting and scheming and, somewhere in the background and sort of “by the way", epic battles that are more spoken about than taken part in; and it is no mistake that the best passages in the book are the “purges" à la Tyrion’s chapter four of “Clash of Kings". That applies to the book. Look for the bearer of the torch lit by Waltari and Graves rather than a variation on Lord of the Rings or the current unending list of generic sagas. That’s why it’s good that HBO took this under its wing, because this IS (and will be) like their Rome with a fantasy backdrop. Simply an adaptation in the form of a series which, despite not matching the image formed inside my head over many years (it isn’t made for fans of the books, but mainly for viewers without an opinion and so mainly it should be able to stand alone by itself as a series in itself; which HBO is managing so far), I find thrilling because the creators avoided following the books religiously and are not afraid of cutting to the quick, even though sometimes it’s a little too hurried and they don’t let some situations sink in properly. They often use theatrical approaches instead of regular cinema language (that only comes with the arrival of Alan Taylor and season two). Which certainly is not a criticism, just an observation. And this is a typical HBO series in the way that separate episodes don’t work too well alone, but only as part of a whole. A prime example is the finale of season one and the opening episode of season two. In each there are so many storylines that each gets their “minute under the spotlight", but there is so much of it that the result is disjointed, with a little bit of everything, which ends up being a little bit of nothing. But if you take them as part of the whole, everything suddenly seems right because, as we know, HBO simply doesn’t work in terms of seasons. For them, the start of a new season is “just" another chapter of one story; and you can tell apart separate seasons only on the basis of their constantly growing (and already high) production value. Although the creators like do it their way (from season two on I would describe it as loosely inspired by “Game of Thrones", rather than an adaptation of “Game of Thrones"), in spirit they remain faithful to the book. And what does being faithful to the book mean in the case of Game of Thrones? This doesn’t mean sticking at all costs to the wealth of stories and twists; these are not so important, can be changed, shortened, combined etc., but being faithful to the characters. The creators often follow different routes than the book’s author, but they follow them to the same destination. Which, in view of their exceptional qualities, characterization and development, I think speaks for itself. | S1: 5/5 | S2: 4/5 | S3: 4/5 | S4: 5/5 | S5: 4/5 | S6: 4/5 | S7: 4/5 | S8: 3/5 | (04/18/2011) (less) (more)