House of the Dragon
by Sulakshi Ratnayake
★★★★
Game of Thrones had been completely erased from the cultural zeitgeist, due to the disappointing final season of George. R. R. Martin’s fantasy epic. The spinoff series, House of The Dragon was tasked with a tall order: navigate a tainted legacy while regaining the trust of a cheated audience.
Its first triumph is its ability to distinguish itself from its predecessor. The story focuses on the “Dance of the Dragons”, a conflict from long before Game of Thrones, as Princess Rhaenyra Targaryen battles for the Iron Throne. Her greatest adversary is Lady Alicent Hightower, who provides a stark contrast to the free-spirited Rhaenyra. Hightower is trapped in a loveless marriage to the king and bound by duty to bear heirs. Her resentment of Rhaenyra, who explores her burgeoning sexuality while asserting her claim to the Iron Throne, divides the court between the Blacks and the Greens. The fraught dynamics of the exceptionally inbred Targaryens take centre stage as unchecked ambition, festering resentment and misunderstanding give rise to war.
House of the Dragon sets itself apart with the limited use of graphic violence and nudity (although the show is by no means free of graphic depictions). The sex, rather than gratuitous, is intentional as it depicts a young women’s sexual exploration. In doing so the story chooses to depict female agency and pleasure, or in Alicent’s case, the lack thereof. Game of Thrones rarely achieved this.
The show does manage to capture some of the lost magic of those early seasons of Game of Thrones, largely through casting and performance. The acting duos portraying Rhaenyra (Milly Alcock and Emily Carey) and Alicent (Emma D’Arcy and Olivia Cooke) offer performances that blend seamlessly across a decade spanning narrative. Matt Smith gives a praiseworthy performance as the Rogue Prince Daemon. Smith exudes a rascalish charisma so potent that even the most rational fans find themselves rooting for incest. Paddy Considine as King Viserys delivers a haunting portrayal of a frail king torn between his duty to the realm and love for his daughter. The spectacle and scale of the story never outshines the nuanced performances.
While there is plenty to admire in this medieval epic, the show fails to contain the breadth of the story in its ten episode run. The time jumps between episodes span decades. Jarring at best and at worst a disservice to Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire. The story and character development in the intervening time are left to the audience’s imagination. The disorientation worsens as actors are swapped out to account for the breakneck speed of the narrative. The supporting cast nevertheless deliver outstanding performances that leave the audience wanting more. The dialogue leaves something to be desired as the constant droning on about duty and succession fails to hold a candle to the wine-induced diatribes of Tyrion or Cersei.
The most commendable achievement of House of the Dragon is that it has successfully revived a dormant fandom. This scorned fan of Game of Thrones took a quick liking to it despite initial trepidations. House of the Dragon will tide us over nicely till George R. R. Martin publishes the next instalment of this epic fantasy.
The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power
by Jeremy Ricketts-Hagan
★★
The end of August was a renaissance of sorts for medieval fantasy fans with the return of the Game of Thrones and The Lord of the Rings franchises. The Rings of Power, unlike House of the Dragon, was not severely burdened with having to please a fanbase left unsatisfied with its recent product. However, it was clear that The Rings of Power was expected to capture its audience in a manner more like the renowned The Lord of the Rings trilogy than the less celebrated The Hobbit trilogy that followed it. On top of that, it also had the double-edged honour of being the most expensively made television show in history.
So, how does The Rings of Power measure up? For better or worse, the first episode encapsulates all the best parts of the show’s first season. The cinematography and grand set designs hark back to the absolute best aspects of the franchise. J. R. R. Tolkien’s fantasy world is again translated exquisitely onto screen with beautifully crafted cities and scenery to inspire even the most lukewarm of fans. The premiere also does not disappoint in terms of its fantastic world building. Great attention to detail is evident in the intricate lore and intertwined societies that populate Middle Earth.
However, this is as good as it gets for the show. The next few episodes are riddled with a sense of stagnation. It feels as if each episode is essentially the same. Storylines that started off intriguing become uninteresting as the plots fail to progress. The aspect of the show that disappointed me the most is its scale. This franchise has always been expert at creating multiple storylines across a sprawling world, yet still presenting a coherent and intertwined narrative. This show fails on that end. On top of the storylines being largely uninspired, the characters involved are not very memorable or engaging, and the plots seem to be entirely separated. Some of the storylines become slightly more intertwined in the latter half of the season, but this is nowhere enough to save the season’s bad pacing and development.
Overall, The Rings of Power manages to capture the beauty but not the brilliance of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. A stagnant story and forgettable characters prohibit further success. This show will do little to satisfy the grand expectations of long-term fans of the franchise, and will do even less to attract new viewers.
Illustrated by Mithalina Taib
