Violence against women in the series. Thoughts (Show spoilers) MOD NOTE post #1

snausages

Right, I didn't think that one comment was going to draw so much intense semantic debate. The point I was trying to make is clear enough, there's lots of rape in the series. A lot more than I think is necessary.

Anyway, Theon narrowly avoided rape when escaping from the Boltons, so that's one more.

In the first episode of this series there was some coercion by one of the new characters (the whoring one) to one of the prostitutes in the brothel scene. I can't remember the specifics. Some forced groping in the background during the now infamous 'chicken' scene in the same episode. I think though that collating every instance of rape and offsetting it against all the death scenes is really besides the point though.

Naydy

Sleepy wrote: »

So far the only rape in GOT which didn't feature in the books was the scene between Jaime and Cersei and that seems to have just been a directorial **** up.

According to some posts already in this thread, that's not true

Drogo/Dany was consensual in the book, the scene at Crasters doesn't exist

Sleepy wrote: »

If we take the count on the video below to be accurate, we've had 5,179 deaths in the first 3 seasons and maybe another couple of 100 in the first few episodes of Season 4. So, no, I wouldn't say the series is "wall to wall" rape...

Just to point out that of those 5179 deaths in that video, almost 5000 occur in about 10 seconds of screen time when the wildfire hits the ships during the Battle of the Blackwater, which was completely necessary and an integral part of the story. I'm not even sure how you could have estimated that number from the show. Many of the deaths in the show are essential as they further the plot.

We've had two episodes in a row now where the show has invented or modified scenes like this with excessive sexual violence that are unnecessary and do little to add to the storyline. The Jaime/Cersei scene made no sense to me nor to a lot of people. The nature of the whole scene at Crasters was jarring and OTT, not just the violence (although that was the main bit) but the drinking from the skull, the ridiculous dialogue that Tanner had when he was threatening the scowly little man, the bit with the baby. It bordered on turning the group into a bunch of unrealistic caricature villains with no depth whatsoever.

I have absolutely no problem with the show portraying rape as a common occurrence, but when scenes like this are shoe-horned in with no real addition to the plot, I do see it as purely for shock value.

Fitzg

I think this article explains it well http://flavorwire.com/452898/yes-what-happened-on-game-of-thrones-last-night-was-rape-so-why-wont-the-episodes-director-admit-it#comments

"A common feature of comment sections this morning has been men (yes, of course it’s men) asking rather sanctimoniously why the Internet is more outraged about this rape scene than the deaths that happened last night, and happen every week on Game of Thrones. The answer is twofold: a) that the encounter wasn’t a rape at all in George R. R. Martin’s book, and b) more pointedly, that the director of last night’s episode also seems to think that what he (yeah, of course it’s a he) wrote also wasn’t a rape.

Sure, people get killed every week on Game of Thrones, but no one’s trying to pretend otherwise. And no one’s trying to pretend murder is a good thing — the Arya storyline, for instance, is one of the show’s strongest because it is a nuanced examination of what exposure to violence and brutality does to a person. If you were cheering unreservedly for Arya when she put her sword through the neck of the man she killed at the end of this season’s first episode, you were missing subtleties and undercurrents."

snausages

I know it's a blog, but the obvious agenda permeating through kind of distracts from whatever valid points she has to make.

edit: It's a guy actually. Well in any case I don't appreciate comments like "yes, of course it's men".

Fitzg

I think its a fair point, check the gender bias on the comments in this thread about rape culture...

Standman

Those damn men and their pesky opinions. Ugh, men!

Fitzg

Fitzg wrote: »

I think its a fair point, check the gender bias on the comments in this thread about rape culture...

Rape culture has absolute zip to do with Game of Thrones.

Nerdlingr

Diego Simeone wrote: »

I mentioned in the show thread how the dog-eating-woman scene was probably to most disturbing to me so far this season. One or two posters brushed it off, saying because it was off-screen it's not as bad.

Nobody said that in the other thread. What I and another poster said was because the incident happened off screen it was left to the viewer to imagine the horror of it. The Ned Stark death is a perfect example of it. We could have got his head flying off, blood everywhere, gore for gore sake. Instead we got silence, shot of sansa screaming, the swing of the sword and arya looking up into the sky at over passing birds. It was a powerful scene brilliantly executed (no pun intended).
Did we need to have a visual representation of how evil the mutineers are, with someone being raped in the background? In this case I didnt think so. I dont it added anything to the scene or told us anything we didnt already know about the folks at crasters. As i said in a previous post I wasnt shocked by it , I just thought it was a pretty cheap shot in a scene full of lowest common demoninators paint by numbers bad guys.

Turtyturd

Don't have any issue with the scene at Crasters. The Nights Watch is made up of the dregs of Westeros, and this seems in keeping with how they would act. They killed Mormont so can't go back South, they are afraid to go North because of Wildlings/Others, so they are trapped in that keep for weeks/months (?) with women, who since they joined the Nights Watch have been in short supply, and technically off limits. I think even with some of the more honourable members of the Nights Watch it would be a struggle to maintain societal norms which are loosely upheld at the best of times.

For me it's akin to a group of rebel priests killing the pope, and being stuck in the Vatican with a group of his.....eh illegitimate daughters.

Sleepy

Naydy wrote: »

According to some posts already in this thread, that's not true

Drogo/Dany was consensual in the book, the scene at Crasters doesn't exist

I thought the Drogo / Dany scenes were actually handled better in the TV series tbh. Which is more honest: that a girl sold into an arranged marriage with a barbarian in exchange for the promise of his army is going to unwillingly submit to being sexually used or that she's going to willingly acquiesce to the sexual advances of someone that terrifies her? Her reclaiming of her own sexuality with Khal Drogo is the first step Danaerys takes towards becoming the liberating Queen we've seen in this season and showing her initial terror and submission in that relationship in the more realistic light that the show does strengthens rather than weakens her plot-line in my opinion.

We've had two episodes in a row now where the show has invented or modified scenes like this with excessive sexual violence that are unnecessary and do little to add to the storyline. The Jaime/Cersei scene made no sense to me nor to a lot of people. The nature of the whole scene at Crasters was jarring and OTT, not just the violence (although that was the main bit) but the drinking from the skull, the ridiculous dialogue that Tanner had when he was threatening the scowly little man, the bit with the baby. It bordered on turning the group into a bunch of unrealistic caricature villains with no depth whatsoever.

I completely agree that the Jaime / Cersei scene was utterly botched. I can understand the argument that the director is making regarding this being a situation where Jaime is trying to reclaim his power etc. but it doesn't fit with the characters for me at all. Having Cersei attempt to pull away from a forced kiss before giving in to her own base desires would have made sense. What the scene showed didn't. I don't think they were attempting to create a rape scene but that's what they ended up with. If it had been intentionally done, I'd be a lot more annoyed by the damage to the characterisations of Jaime and Cersei than I am but, being fair, the production team on GOT have made very few mistakes with (and some notable improvements to) a very complex story to-date so I'm prepared to be forgiving.

The scene at Crasters was OTT (and another rather uncharacteristic mis-step), but the on-screen rape was the least part of it imo. Tanner's dialogue and skull drinking were bludgeoning viewers over the head with the message that these are bad guys and, worse than lacking subtlety, they were utterly lacking in realism for the world we've been shown to date. The rapes were entirely in-keeping with both that world and the situation that these characters are facing: they know their days have to be numbered so they're indulging in everything they can while they're still alive.

The one nice touch in this scene was that of Rast pathetically kissing the girl's back, as if he was desperately seeking to establish some bond of affection with another human being because he knows his situation is hopeless: as far as he can see he's either going to be killed by Tanner, the White Walkers, Wildlings or a combination of starvation and exposure as their supplies run out. He knows his death is coming and is desperate enough to hope that a solitary tender gesture could make a girl (that he's just raped!) offer his some affection.

I can see faults in both A Song of Ice and Fire and it's adaptation in Game of Thrones but depicting violence, both sexual and ordinary, against women really isn't one of them. The world of Westeros and Esteros are violent, misogynistic places, much as our own world was when we had a similar level of political and technological advancement.

And while some characters (e.g. Ned and Catelyn Stark, Hot Pie, Sansa, Jon Snow, Samwell Tarly) seem to quite happily accept their pre-ordained roles in this society, many others strive to escape the restrictions those roles foist upon them, either overtly like Brienne, Danaerys, Arya, Gendry and The Brotherhood Without Banners or with more subtlety to do so behind the scenes like Cersei, Oleanna, Varys etc. It's actually easier to think of strong female characters in the series than weak ones and to paint the world as a less vicious one would cheapen those characters imo.

This is a world where gender privilege very certainly exists but, much as it did in our own world, those privileges extended both ways. Both sons and daughters were forced into arranged marriages; women were deemed as both property and something to be protected from the world, men were expected to risk gruesome death or mutilation on the battlefield while women "fought their battles in the birthing bed". It's without doubt a sexist world and Martin doesn't shy from exploring this (particularly through Brienne's chapters).

Why show the violence on-screen rather than off? Because the first rule of good story-telling is "show, don't tell". Some of the "sexposition" in this show has made fairly gratuitous use of the nude female (and more recently male) form but, being brutally honest, I can think of worse things to look at whilst some back-story is filled in!

snausages

I think another important rule of good story-telling would be to show only what is necessary. In my view, some of the stuff in last week's episode was gratuitous. But that's just what I think.

Sleepy

snausages wrote: »

I think another important rule of good story-telling would be to show only what is necessary. In my view, some of the stuff in last week's episode was gratuitous. But that's just what I think.

I think that's very much a stylistic choice rather than a rule. I like having the texture that comes with showing more than simply what's necessary but I can appreciate that some like more simplicity in their fiction. While many loved Steinbeck's sparse stories they bored me to tears yet on the other end, the endless listing of labels and descriptions of clothing in American Psycho almost made me give up on it.

snausages

All the fashion label stuff has a function in that book, it's all about the depthlessness of yuppie culture. But yeah, it's ****e.

Sleepy

Oh, I got the point of it, just found it tedious to read, in much the same way, I suppose, that you find the depiction of rape on-screen distasteful in GOT?

Naydy

Sleepy wrote: »

I thought the Drogo / Dany scenes were actually handled better in the TV series tbh. Which is more honest: that a girl sold into an arranged marriage with a barbarian in exchange for the promise of his army is going to unwillingly submit to being sexually used or that she's going to willingly acquiesce to the sexual advances of someone that terrifies her? Her reclaiming of her own sexuality with Khal Drogo is the first step Danaerys takes towards becoming the liberating Queen we've seen in this season and showing her initial terror and submission in that relationship in the more realistic light that the show does strengthens rather than weakens her plot-line in my opinion.
!

I disagree. I always thought she was suffering from some sort of stockholm syndrome and was trying to make the most of it. I didn't understand why people liked Drogo so much til someone explained the difference in the books to me. I didn't see her becoming a liberating Queen til after he died.

Sleepy wrote: »

I completely agree that the Jaime / Cersei scene was utterly botched. I can understand the argument that the director is making regarding this being a situation where Jaime is trying to reclaim his power etc. but it doesn't fit with the characters for me at all. Having Cersei attempt to pull away from a forced kiss before giving in to her own base desires would have made sense. What the scene showed didn't. I don't think they were attempting to create a rape scene but that's what they ended up with. If it had been intentionally done, I'd be a lot more annoyed by the damage to the characterisations of Jaime and Cersei than I am but, being fair, the production team on GOT have made very few mistakes with (and some notable improvements to) a very complex story to-date so I'm prepared to be forgiving.

!

The fact that they couldn't tell that was a rape scene is nearly as bad as creating one on purpose in my mind. Changing a scene of consensual sex into rape, even by accident, is a pretty big f*** up in my mind.

Sleepy wrote: »

And while some characters (e.g. Ned and Catelyn Stark, Hot Pie, Sansa, Jon Snow, Samwell Tarly) seem to quite happily accept their pre-ordained roles in this society, many others strive to escape the restrictions those roles foist upon them, either overtly like Brienne, Danaerys, Arya, Gendry and The Brotherhood Without Banners or with more subtlety to do so behind the scenes like Cersei, Oleanna, Varys etc. It's actually easier to think of strong female characters in the series than weak ones and to paint the world as a less vicious one would cheapen those characters imo.

This is a world where gender privilege very certainly exists but, much as it did in our own world, those privileges extended both ways. Both sons and daughters were forced into arranged marriages; women were deemed as both property and something to be protected from the world, men were expected to risk gruesome death or mutilation on the battlefield while women "fought their battles in the birthing bed". It's without doubt a sexist world and Martin doesn't shy from exploring this (particularly through Brienne's chapters).
!

Again, I have no problem with the depiction of a misogynistic world, I understand that is the setting for the story. And I never denied that there are strong female characters. 99% of the time I have no problem with what is depicted. I disagree that it is necessary to invent scenes where rape is shown over an extended period with close up shots and provactive language is used to further this notion of a sexist world.

Sleepy wrote: »

Why show the violence on-screen rather than off? Because the first rule of good story-telling is "show, don't tell". Some of the "sexposition" in this show has made fairly gratuitous use of the nude female (and more recently male) form but, being brutally honest, I can think of worse things to look at whilst some back-story is filled in!

We are talking about sexual violence not the scenes of consesual sex or nudity. Being brutally honest, your statement in bold is fine for the latter but kinda disturbing for the former.

Sleepy

Naydy wrote: »

I disagree. I always thought she was suffering from some sort of stockholm syndrome and was trying to make the most of it. I didn't understand why people liked Drogo so much til someone explained the difference in the books to me. I didn't see her becoming a liberating Queen til after he died.

Her falling in love with Drogo didn't make much sense to me in either medium tbh. Her "making the best of it" in making their sexual relationship something that was also pleasurable to her could go some way to explaining it as it's a fairly established theory that the hormones released during orgasm help create a bond between the parties involved but his impressive physique and strengths as a warrior aside, there seemed little to like about the character.

The fact that they couldn't tell that was a rape scene is nearly as bad as creating one on purpose in my mind. Changing a scene of consensual sex into rape, even by accident, is a pretty big f*** up in my mind.

I'd suggest it's probably worse.

Again, I have no problem with the depiction of a misogynistic world, I understand that is the setting for the story. And I never denied that there are strong female characters. 99% of the time I have no problem with what is depicted. I disagree that it is necessary to invent scenes where rape is shown over an extended period with close up shots and provactive language is used to further this notion of a sexist world.

I wouldn't have classified much of the scene as being "close up" not particularly overly extended. The dialogue in the scene was cack-handed though.

We are talking about sexual violence not the scenes of consesual sex or nudity. Being brutally honest, your statement in bold is fine for the latter but kinda disturbing for the former.

Sorry, the two subjects do seem to go hand in hand a lot in the discussion of Game of Thrones. For clarification I was talking about the regular depiction of nudity and consensual sex that many cite as a problem with the series. I'd be far quicker to call many of them as serving little or no plot purpose (e.g. the scene in Series 1 or 2 or Littlefinger coaching the prostitutes in his brothel) than I would the depiction of the mutineers rape of crasters daughter in the series however.

Potatoeman

Sleepy wrote: »

Her falling in love with Drogo didn't make much sense to me in either medium tbh. Her "making the best of it" in making their sexual relationship something that was also pleasurable to her could go some way to explaining it as it's a fairly established theory that the hormones released during orgasm help create a bond between the parties involved but his impressive physique and strengths as a warrior aside, there seemed little to like about .

Her characters past might explain this though. She been on the run with her brother who is not a very nice guy and also he was supposed to be her husband too.

Naydy

Sleepy wrote: »

Her falling in love with Drogo didn't make much sense to me in either medium tbh. Her "making the best of it" in making their sexual relationship something that was also pleasurable to her could go some way to explaining it as it's a fairly established theory that the hormones released during orgasm help create a bond between the parties involved but his impressive physique and strengths as a warrior aside, there seemed little to like about the character.
Completely agree.

I'd suggest it's probably worse.
Completely agree.

I wouldn't have classified much of the scene as being "close up" not particularly overly extended. The dialogue in the scene was cack-handed though.
I think this is the one thing we disagree on and perhaps it is simply a matter of threshold for this kind of thing. There was one shot in particular where they deliberately cut to a close up of one of them raping a woman while Tanner spoke which is probably what swung it for me as completely unnecessary. That dialogue was bloody awful anyways, he sounded like a 14 year old discovering swearing for the first time in front of his mates.

Sorry, the two subjects do seem to go hand in hand a lot in the discussion of Game of Thrones. For clarification I was talking about the regular depiction of nudity and consensual sex that many cite as a problem with the series. I'd be far quicker to call many of them as serving little or no plot purpose (e.g. the scene in Series 1 or 2 or Littlefinger coaching the prostitutes in his brothel) than I would the depiction of the mutineers rape of crasters daughter in the series however.

I'd agree a lot of the nudity is unnecessary, but it is there for the reason you stated yourself. Plus, it is for the most part, fairly inoffensive and harmless. I don't think that applies to some of the recent rape scenes they've filmed

Mickeroo

The scene in Crasters was invented for the show sure, but there's some horrible references to rape and violence in the book that have never made it on screen. The stuff we hear about the Mountain doing in the book was much worse than anything the show has shown so far imo.
.

snausages

Just on the Craster's scene, there were at least two rapes happening (one close up and one in the background), a woman being beat across the head while the skull drinker guy said '**** them till their dead' and a scene of the fat guy slobbering over a woman he's just raped.

That's an awful lot of darkness for one minute of TV. It's not quite the same as the brothel orgy scenes. It's not why I'm a GoT fan. I think some of that stuff could have been toned down without destroying the point that the writers are trying to convey.

username123

snausages wrote: »

Just on the Craster's scene, there were at least two rapes happening (one close up and one in the background), a woman being beat across the head while the skull drinker guy said '**** them till their dead' and a scene of the fat guy slobbering over a woman he's just raped.

That's an awful lot of darkness for one minute of TV. It's not quite the same as the brothel orgy scenes. I think some of that stuff could have been toned down without destroying the point that the writers are trying to convey.

Yes but we were being shown the inside of what is effectively a rape house. It always was a rape house incidentally, but with just one raper, now there are more and they are men on the edge of desperation which wasnt the situation for Craster himself.

snausages

That explains why there are men raping, but not why we need to see it.

The worst scenes in Lolita were alluded to, not 'shown'. A better example might be True Detective, where the worst stuff happens off-screen. But we still know it happened. *



*I still haven't watched the last two episodes, so no spoilers please!

Mickeroo

snausages wrote: »

*I still haven't watched the last two episodes, so no spoilers please!

I haven't watched any of it so I would appreciate that also :P

username123

snausages wrote: »

That explains why there are men raping, but not why we need to see it.

The worst scenes in Lolita were alluded to, not 'shown'. A better example might be True Detective, where the worst stuff happens off-screen. But we still know it happened. *



*I still haven't watched the last two episodes, so no spoilers please!

I havent watched either of these although I have read Lolita.

So is it not better then, that we are shown, because our imaginations will conjure up much worse than we are shown - a fact used extensively in the best horror movies.

Naux

snausages wrote: »

Just on the Craster's scene, there were at least two rapes happening (one close up and one in the background), a woman being beat across the head while the skull drinker guy said '**** them till their dead' and a scene of the fat guy slobbering over a woman he's just raped.

That's an awful lot of darkness for one minute of TV. It's not quite the same as the brothel orgy scenes. It's not why I'm a GoT fan. I think some of that stuff could have been toned down without destroying the point that the writers are trying to convey.

I agree but there are multiple examples of equally dark TV in GOT which do not involve rape.

As I've posted before GOT(books & TV show) are full of cruelty, brutality, rape, murder, torture etc. Your point of view is that the rape stuff(as opposed to the torture etc etc) is a problem and destroys the point that the writers are trying to convey.

The success of the TV show in general would seem to indicate that the writers are doing pretty well overall and that the majority of people take it for what it is : Tv dramatization of a fantasy/medieval/magic book

I think it is farcical to over analyse a medieval fantasy world.

snausages

Naux wrote: »

I agree but there are multiple examples of equally dark TV in GOT which do not involve rape.

As I've posted before GOT(books & TV show) are full of cruelty, brutality, rape, murder, torture etc. Your point of view is that the rape stuff(as opposed to the torture etc etc) is a problem and destroys the point that the writers are trying to convey.

The success of the TV show in general would seem to indicate that the writers are doing pretty well overall and that the majority of people take it for what it is : Tv dramatization of a fantasy/medieval/magic book

I think it is farcical to over analyse a medieval fantasy world.

Its success is an indication that it's successful, nothing more. It doesn't shield the creators from criticism that their show is making so much money. Success doesn't just suddenly de-problematise all problematic aspects of the show.

I don't think that the rape scenes destroy the point that the creators are trying to make. I never said that at all. But I do think it is ruining the show. For me, at least.

Why is it farcical to analyse GoT? Why isn't GoT deserving of critical analysis? People have written PHD theses on Buffy, for feck sake. Another commenter in here mentioned someone writing a dissertation on GoT, so I don't agree that it's 'farcical'. If you think that then I'm not sure why you're in this thread. And I mean that in the least snide and condescending way possible.

username123 wrote: »

I havent watched either of these although I have read Lolita.

So is it not better then, that we are shown, because our imaginations will conjure up much worse than we are shown - a fact used extensively in the best horror movies.

No, I don't think so. Lolita would have been disgusting if it went into detail of the abuses.

snausages

Mickeroo wrote: »

I haven't watched any of it so I would appreciate that also :P

Well you need to rectify that asap, Ser Mickeroo, because it is the best TV I've ever watched.

username123

snausages wrote: »

No, I don't think so. Lolita would have been disgusting if it went into detail of the abuses.

Again, I havent seen Lolita so I am not sure what you are talking about.

Can we stick with GoT?
Are you saying that because rape is disgusting they shouldnt have shown it?

Naux

snausages wrote: »

Its success is an indication that it's successful, nothing more. It doesn't shield the creators from criticism that their show is making so much money. Success doesn't just suddenly de-problematise all problematic aspects of the show.

I don't think that the rape scenes destroy the point that the creators are trying to make. I never said that at all. But I do think it is ruining the show. For me, at least.

Why is it farcical to analyse GoT? Why isn't GoT deserving of critical analysis? People have written PHD theses on Buffy, for feck sake. Another commenter in here mentioned someone writing a dissertation on GoT, so I don't agree that it's 'farcical'. If you think that then I'm not sure why you're in this thread. And I mean that in the least snide and condescending way possible.

Check out post #7 ................gets across my point better than I can methinks!!

snausages

username123 wrote: »

Again, I havent seen Lolita so I am not sure what you are talking about.

Can we stick with GoT?
Are you saying that because rape is disgusting they shouldnt have shown it?

Sorry, I meant the book. I haven't seen the film either, I heard it was too sanitised actually.

I think they should show some rape because it is an important and unavoidable aspect of the world. But they do not need to show half as much as they're showing. I'm kind of tired of explaining that tbh. The stuff that they're currently showing is unrelenting and extremely graphic when it doesn't need to be.