*That would be BOOK spoilers.
Book Spoilers AHOY! You have been warned.
ALSO*
.
Two Scenarios:
- 12-year-old girl is sold off as a bride by her brother to a warlord so he can effectively gain control of the warlord's army. Warlord is older by approximately 10 years. 12-year-old and warlord have consensual intercourse after some gentle coaxing.
- 16-year-old girl is sold off as a bribe by her brother to a warlord so he can effectively gain control of the warlord's army. Warlord is older by approximately 10 years. 16-year-old girl is coerced into intercourse on the wedding night.
Now, both scenarios are not without controversy, but the latter scenario was the one the writers/producers/network administrators of Game of Thrones chose to go with during the first season of the show. It didn't really strike me until I read the books after I watched the first season how different the text was to what was portrayed. There are always differences between book and TV/film when adapting a story - sometimes these changes are for good, sometimes not (HP and the Half-Blood Prince, Ginny and Harry kiss after a Quidditch game in the book... in the movie?? DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED!).
I'm a HUGE fan of the Song of Ice and Fire series on which Game of Thrones is based, and I'm a huge fan of the TV show. There hasn't been much that has bothered me about liberties taken between book and television in three seasons, but in the fourth we've hit some controversial differences and it has me very confused.
If you don't follow the show, you may not have heard that for two weeks in a row the show featured scenes of rape. One between a brother and sister who had previously been having consensual, inscestual sex, and another between a group of Night's Watch (military branch) deserters who had taken over a small "village" and basically enslaved the women there and proceeded to rape them repeatedly. The latter scene actually really bothered me - it was live and in glorious color that this was happening. I definitely could have lived without seeing that - as could the whole of the television watching populous.
While the second scene of the deserters didn't take place in the book, it was probably added to "spice up" a lagging story line. But the scene between the brother and sister was consensual in the books. Completely consensual, which makes the future story problamatoc. Both characters are undergoing HUGE character shifts, and the brother in particular is on the path to a redeeming story arc - which has now been ruined for those who only watch the show because he's a rapist.
Why change scenes of consensual sex to coerced intercourse? Why change a scene of consensual incest to one of rape? Why add a graphic rape scene to a story that honestly doesn't have a ton of rape? It's mentioned, alluded to, and happens in the story... but not the way it's been portrayed on the show. It's in the story because historically, sexual violence happens. But I feel in the books it's not as overt and in your face as it has been on the show, but maybe that's because books can't consent to sex or commit sexual assault.
Television viewership tends to go up when controversial acts are portrayed, which is understandable even if loathsome. Controversy engages discussion, and as much as I hate to admit it, draws us in. We are still very much a gladiatorial society. We may not be feeding Christians to lions, or cheering while slaves fight with each other, but we'll watch as people suffer Naked and Afraid in the wilderness for days on end. And we'll laugh, jeer and call in to American Idol and the Voice to criticize the "failures" and reward those we favor.
Wwe like to push the line of what's acceptable and not acceptable on other TV shows as well. Dexter makes us side with a serial killer, Law and Order SVU (of which I'm also a huge fan) pushes numerous boundaries and raises the awareness of sexual assault through depiction and description of crimes, and CSI or Criminal Minds have taken us inside fictional killings and given me enough gore that I've lost my appetite at times (and I have a STRONG stomach).
But in giving action to a fictional character, you define and create who they are. To change these actions, you are also changing who that character is and who they are going forward. For the brother and sister (Jaime and Cersei), I feel like changing that scene has impacted how some only show-watchers will view the show going forward. It's acceptable (well, as acceptable as it can be) to give horrid actions to a character who will be killed the next episode (via sword through the back of the head... and no one deserved it more),
But in changing the scene with Jaime and Cersei to one of rape versus consensual intercourse, Jaime on the show has been changed from a character who was starting to gain audience favor and sympathy, back to one they dislike. Even when Cersei later rejects him, it's not as heartbreaking because he's now a rapist. This character who is traveling towards redemption after being a horrible person is forever tainted. It's almost as if the show producers assaulted his character by changing the actions he engaged in - he's the victim here.
And Cersei, who goes on to commit some very heinous and treacherous acts against several people, is left looking like the sympathetic character. Neither character on the show are what they are in the book, because someone somewhere decided rape was more interesting than consensual sex.
That's it right there, rape is more interesting. I discovered a twitter feed from an article talking about the ridiculous things that TV executives have asked producers of shows or films to change, or suggestions they made. Some of these were pretty insane, but the one that stuck with me was "“Our research shows that women respond well to violence. Take out the lifeguard and put in the rape scene.” — NBC Executive.
There are loads of discussions and tangents I could go off on about why this is an issue and what we can do to fix it, but that's not why I wrote this blog. I wrote it because I was confused as to why a producer or a writer would change scenes of consensual sex in a show to ones of sexual assault. And there's my answer, as blunt and horrid as the scenes in the show were.
It saddens me, though, because I know at least 6 people who've now decided to stop watching the show, and they've flat out refused to read the books because they're convinced that if there's rape in the show, it must be in the books. Which is not the case at all. So congrats to whoever made the decision to make the character of Jamie Lannister a rapist - you may have gotten a lot of views and prompted discussion about your show, but you've put numerous people off from watching it AND reading a really good series of books. You've discouraged people from reading because you decided rape was more interesting.
Will I stop watching? No, because I know what happens and although the changes bothered me and disgusted me, I know that's just a representation of Jamie and not who Jamie really is (which is a fictional non-rapist character in a fantasy series).
But seeing that change, seeing the reactions, and thinking about the decisions that lead to that change have prompted me to again think about how gladiatorial our society still is. Like I said, we're not not feeding Christians to lions, but we're still offering innocents up for sacrifice in the form of humiliation on reality TV, and destroying the personas of fictional characters by changing their actions and behaviors.
I realize that sexual violence occurs in history and it's portrayal is not what I have a problem with (Like I said, Law and Order SVU is one of my favorite shows). My issue is with changing what WAS consensual sex into sexual violence. I think we have a long way to go before we're fully out of the arenas if someone thinks this is necessary to character development.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment