The Stake

recognizing the best and worst in pop culture

  • Movies
  • TV
  • Books
  • Comics

Is Outlander’s Jamie Frasier a New Masculine Role?

June 5, 2025 by thestakemag 7 Comments

Sexy, sweet, and brainless are not terms normally reserved for the leading man of a show. But in Outlander, a Starz period drama set in 18th c. Scotland, a hunky ginger guy plays the eye candy role usually reserved for a pretty supporting actress.

Outlander (based on a series of novels by Diana Gabaldon) is the story of Claire Randall, a vacationing nurse who touches a standing stone while in the Scottish Highlands and accidentally time travels from her 1940’s life back into 18th-century. It’s a turbulent era, with the British struggling to control Scottish clans and bring its people to submission. Unable to figure out how to return to her own time and husband, Claire eventually marries Jamie Fraser for protection, escaping the clutches of the depraved English.

It is after their marriage that the Frasers’ love story unfolds. Jamie strides over the hills and dales, smiting down evil doers that trouble and attack Claire. He shines best when he’s wielding a sword and a rapier, taking orders, and/or romping in bed. He is there to serve and protect and make other women a touch jealous (or madly jealous) over Claire’s good luck. Jamie is a reversal of the Brainless Beauty with a Heart of Gold trope so often played by women on screen; this time the trope is fashioned into a romantic fantasy accessible and desirable to women.

Jamie’s roots lie deep within the world of romance novels. The whole point of Jamie is not to be Claire’s intellectual equal but to be her right hand man. And he does the job exceedingly well. Claire is the independent queen of her life and Jamie is the brawn to her brains, getting her out scrapes and explaining the simple laws of this time and its land so she can survive. He explains that in this era every man rules like a king over his wife and family. But this outlook does not work with Claire because she will brook no other rule than her own. After a few brushes with death, Claire slowly realizes she must follow Jamie’s instructions if she wants to live in a foreign and violent world. But instead of ruling over her, Jamie becomes her translator, her bridge to understanding and surviving a savage time.

Every episode of Outlander centers on Claire. Her decisions and actions push the episodes along. Background storylines about powerful characters are also told but they are only presented in as far as they ultimately effect Claire’s fate. Everyone either aids or hinders her. And since Claire is the center and everything shown affects her, it is through her gaze, the female gaze, that the story unfolds.

Jamie is her great aid but never the focus. Instead, he is what men have long demanded from women—an assistant for living. And he’s a loving assistant. His actions are marked not by petulance but love and admiration. In many scenes, Jamie and Claire talk and listen to one another. Whatever Claire tells him, Jamie believes her—he even believes she comes from the future and never doubts her. While his belief is nothing short of a miracle, it’s also the turning of a gender normative. Most women’s roles on TV shows and film center on listening, comforting, and believing distressed men. But in Outlander it is Jamie who listens, comforts, and believes in Claire.

Whatever myriad background storylines are afoot, filling out characters and making them multi-dimensional, the story always turns back to its main protagonist, Claire Fraser, an independent and strong woman. By keeping Claire in the center rather than Jamie, Outlander shouldn’t be breaking ground. And yet it is.

Straight white men and their stories dominate current television shows and there’s much work to be done to overcome this trend; Outlander is one step in the right direction. Its success proves that a female protagonist at the center of the show with a male sidekick can bring in millions of viewers. Here’s hoping it marks the beginning of a trend: high-profile television telling woman-centered stories. Today, it’s big news. In the future, Outlander’s success could help it become the norm.

Catherine Eaton is a contributor to The Stake. Catherine is a writer living in a western suburb of Chicago. She blogs over at sparrowpost.com and enjoys foraging around the neighborhood in her spare time.

Follow The Stake on Twitter and Facebook

Filed Under: TV Tagged With: Catherine Eaton, Male Gaze, Outlander, Patriarchy, Ronald D. Moore, Starz, Tropes, TV

Game of Thrones recap: Hardhome

June 1, 2025 by Andrew DeYoung Leave a Comment

Game of Thrones, all is forgiven. Well, I guess not all—there’s still a lot of stuff I’m mad at you about, and one good episode isn’t going to change that. But today, one week after I went on a tirade against a show that seemed to have gotten lazy, the series partially redeemed itself and, in the words of a friend on Twitter, leapt back on the rails by delivering one of the best episodes in recent memory.

Most of the talk online will probably center around the epic battle scene the episode delivered in its final 15 minutes, and justly so. (More on that later.) But this episode was something different from the very beginning; starting with the first scene, it felt more interesting and vibrantly alive than GoT has in ages. Characters moved forward, changed in small but important ways, and action seemed to happen against the backdrop of an actual world, teeming with life and humanity.

Things started off with Tyrion and Jorah facing off against Dany in her throne room, where she was ostensibly considering whether or not to kill both of them. Tyrion and Dany are among the series’ most beloved characters, and their first real interaction onscreen didn’t disappoint. One of the show’s most reliable pleasures has been watching Tyrion survey a situation, think about the angles, and then speak his mind—this is what happened when, as his first bit of advising to the Mother of Dragons, he told her what he thought she should do with Mormont: don’t kill him, since “killing those who are devoted to you won’t inspire devotion,” but don’t keep him around either, since he’s proven himself a traitor. Jorah is banished, and rather going straight to a maester to find a cure for his greyscale, he went back to the fighting pits for another shot at impressing the queen he loves.

Tyrion, on the other hand, buys himself some more time to impress Dany—and impress her he does. In their next scene together, these two discover one major thing they have in common: they’re both the children of terrible fathers who made, also, terrible rulers. Aerys Targaryen was a mad king whose brutal rule inspired a rebellion; Tywin Lannister was a schemer who cared more for his family’s power than for the peace and well-being of his subjects, and whose conniving ultimately got him murdered on the shitter by his own son. Dany and Tyrion know who their fathers were, know their flaws—the question is, can they, together, find a different way to rule? Can they be “the right kind of terrible, the kind that keeps people from being even more terrible”? Tyrion, for his part, thinks that together they have the best chance of doing the most good in Slaver’s Bay, but Dany wants to go home. When Tyrion tells her that she’ll need some alliances with the powerful families to take Westeros, Dany gives one of those analogies for the world of Westeros that the show has become so famous for (it’s a game, it’s a ladder…); today Westeros is a wheel, with one family, one spoke, always on top. And Dany doesn’t want to stop the wheel. She wants to break the wheel. A little on the nose, but coming at the end of a delightfully talky scene, I can forgive it.

Meanwhile, in King’s Landing, things are looking increasingly desperate for Cersei. I’ve been critical of this plotline, and I still think it’s a little sloppy. How the Sparrows have managed to take the entire city, how many of them there are, and why no one in the ruling classes seems to be taking any action to take power—or their beloved family members—back are all things that the writers need to establish a little better. And this episode didn’t actually move things forward much in King’s Landing, instead marking time until the trial, or the inevitable confrontation, or whatever. But if all the episode could do was mark time, then at least it marked time in an intelligent, interesting way, by showing us the events in the city solely through Cersei’s eyes, in her dungeon: offered a drink of water in exchange for a confession she refuses to give, visited by one of her minions and told that her own son is too weak, to ineffectual, to visit her.

The rest of the action came from the Stark kids. (We were, blessedly, spared another dopey scene in Dorne.) Arya’s education in being no one continues as she lives into a false identity and is given the mission to spy on, and presumably kill, a crooked merchant. Sansa, meanwhile, has another confrontation with Theon, wherein she discovers what was done to him to make him Reek, and gets another important bit of information as well: Theon didn’t kill Bran and Rickon, after. What she can do with that information remains to be seen. What’s certain, though, is that Sansa won’t be bowed by her mistreatment at Ramsay’s hands: she’s still a vital and strong character, and whether she manages to kill Ramsay herself or convince Theon to do it by waking him to himself, she’ll be someone who attempts to make her own fate in whatever circumstances she finds herself.

But this episode really belonged to the North. In Castle Black, Sam reassures Olly that Jon’s doing the right thing by telling him, “Sometimes, a man has to make hard choices, choices that look wrong to others, but that he knows are right.” Olly asks, “You believe that?” Sam does—but I wonder what Olly’s real takeaway from the lesson is. Olly’s suffered a terrible trauma, seeing his family killed in a raid led by Tormund Giantsbane. So when he walks away from Sam, deep in thought, is he reconciling himself to Jon’s alliance with the Wildlings, or his he making his own hard choice that will look wrong to others, but that feels right in his own heart—a decision to take his vengeance? We’ll see, I suppose.

In Hardhome, the Wildling stronghold that gives the episode its name, Jon is reaping the consequences of his own hard choice, trying to convince a people whose identity consists in their unwillingness to yield that their best chance of survival lies in alliance with their greatest enemies. Some of the Wildlings pledge to join him, others (Thenns, of course) refuse—but it’s all prelude to the episode’s, and perhaps the season’s, great setpiece: the attack of the White Walkers.

And what a setpiece it is. The scene delivers the kind of pulse-pounding, bloody action GoT has become known for—and yet, to begin with, it’s actually a wonderful bit of filmmaking from a different genre completely: horror. The scene begins with a change in the air, the coming of a white mist, and it’s then that the Wildlings realize that trouble is coming and lock the gates. Some are left behind on the wrong side of the wall, clamoring against the wooden door. But then, they’re enveloped by mist and their feet, visible under the door, just disappear. I’ve no idea what happened there, but the imagining is worse than the seeing—a wise choice for a show that far to often shows us everything, even those things we don’t want or need to see. Then, of course, the White Walkers fling themselves against the wall, and all hell breaks loose.

Action scenes on film and TV are often criticized, these days, for being deliberately confusing, constructed of shaky images and a barrage of cuts that convey a feeling of peril and chaos without combining into sense. Last night’s action was sometimes guilty of these sins—it wasn’t always clear who was doing what, where different characters were, or the spatial relationships of the combatants. But I think this was a deliberate choice. The shots of the White Walkers clamoring through tiny holes in the wall, often canted, weren’t so much action shots as they were horror shots; zombies haven’t been this terrifying since 28 Days Later. When the action needed to be comprehensible, it was. And the scene managed to fit in at least one wordless revelation: dragonglass isn’t the only thing that can kill White Walkers. Valyrian steel can, too.

There are at least a few images from the scene that deserve special mention. A battalion of White Walkers flinging themselves off a cliff and landing on the ground like a flock of dead birds, only to stand again and fling themselves against Jon and his men. The image of one of the Ice Kings (I’m sure this guy has a name, but I lack the energy to wiki it; readers, chime in below in the comments) lifting his arms to add the dead Wildlings to his ranks. And Jon Snow’s boat slipping silently away, one commander looking at another across the water. Perhaps the boldest choice of all was to cut to black in silence, and to let that silence, filled with the chilling sounds of the wind over the Shivering Sea, linger on through the credits.

What a great scene. What a great episode. I’m excited about Game of Thrones again.

Filed Under: TV Tagged With: Game of Thrones, TV recaps

Outlander – Season 1 Finale - Episode 16

May 31, 2025 by Christopher ZF Leave a Comment

Catherine: Dear Stephanie and fellow viewers, it looks like we survived this last episode of Outlander. But just barely. The episode opened with the great escape of Jamie Fraser by his friends’ cattle beating down the prison doors. For a few blissful moments, Captain Randall was stampeded (though not nearly as much as he deserved) by angry Scottish cattle. After so much torture, Jamie couldn’t function and his friends gathered him up and carried him out while the cows reigned supreme at Wentworth Castle. But such a happy start soon gave way to horrific scenes of torture. I drank tea and perused my email spam folder to get through the endless scenes of sexual and physical abuse.

Stephanie: Just barely survived is right. This episode required immediate detoxing with a pleasantly bland viewing of House Hunters, where the worst that can happen is someone whines they can’t afford the house with the open floor plan and stainless steel appliances. We also watched kitten videos. This was a dark episode with torture taken to a deeper level. It’s bad enough seeing a character physically beaten, but to see someone sexually violated and emotionally manipulated crossed into extremely disturbing territory. What I’m trying to determine is whether we as an audience gained any new insight about the characters after being subjected to this trauma. We already know Black Jack Randall is a psychopath with sadistic tastes, and we already know Jamie will sacrifice to save Claire. What did we gain by seeing such intimate scenes of erotic torture? The one moment I really latched on to was Claire convincing Jamie to live, that if he died, she would die.

Catherine: I highly recommend House Hunters Renovation and kitten videos after watching disturbing rape and torture scenes on cable shows. I mean…if you Have to watch rape and torture scenes, treat yo self (Donna and Tom of Parks and Rec style). Go buy a purse! New shoes! Whatever it takes to gain distance from this episode.

I also kept asking myself what these trauma scenes were hoping to offer. Watching Jamie raped and then later sexually succumb to his predator, his spirit, body, and mind being broken, is something we’re more accustomed to seeing women endure in film and TV. Most murder shows revolve around women being raped and tortured (and finally killed, which would have happened to Jamie if he hadn’t escaped). If there’s trauma, it’s done to women’s bodies and good men can seek revenge. But in Outlander, it’s Jamie being broken. However, Outlander overstepped the bounds by showing Randall raping and then mesmerizing, breaking and coercing Jamie into sex. That’s something that no one needs to see especially the poor souls who have undergone sexual abuse and physical trauma themselves. It was all too much and too graphic.

Stephanie: I’ve seen an opinion piece online that viewed the scenes as a positive since showing the sexual violence gives it the weight it deserves and does not dismiss the severity and complications of those experiences. But then there’s your point, where is the line? The previous episode already showed Jamie being manipulated by Randall. What I did appreciate is the complex feelings Jamie shared with Claire, which were utterly heartbreaking. Jamie confused how he conceded to Randall’s very deliberate manipulation as some sort of consent, and that is a real experience many victims have. Catherine, you brought up while we were watching that Claire’s future-era is still not one very familiar with psychology or post traumatic disorders, but her experience as a war nurse certainly hints that she has some understanding.

Catherine: Jamie’s resulting confusion and his self-loathing, the after effects of rape, sexual coercion and torture, were the most moving and truthful parts of this episode. He wasn’t given much time to recover (gotta get up and catch a boat to France! chop chop!) but his desire to die wasn’t overlooked or cut short. Seeing Jamie, the strong warrior, at the end of his tether and desiring to slit his own throat, told more of the story of what Randall put him through than the actual graphic scenes did. Claire doesn’t have many tools at her disposal to guide him out of the mental hell he’s trapped in but she finally lands on one that works: herself. She announces she’ll die if he does. She forces him out of himself and she’s lucky that works.

One thing I did like about this episode was the positive view of the Church. The monk she tells her story to listens and believes her. He does not call her a witch or try to get up her skirt. The monastery is a refuge for Claire, the first real one she’s had since she’s landed in this world. She can catch her breath here and figure out how to help her tormented husband.

Stephanie: Yes, I also liked that Claire found someone else to tell her story who believed her. I think that was really meaningful in a time when the one person she sacrificed everything for was in a state of emotional and physical ruin. Especially given now that we know Claire is pregnant. She was probably fearful in new ways for her future, and having that solace in the monastery even for a moment gave us some peace too. I think it was needed this episode. Also, it kind of hinted at a hopeful end (to the season) that not everyone is a threat. Though, staying in Scotland isn’t safe for she and Jamie. I loved the parting image of the two on the boat, sailing for France.

Catherine: I’m going to miss the beautiful Scottish setting but I’m looking forward to new characters, different fashions (Paris!), and more of Outlander’s great cinematography. It’s funny how Claire already has plans to change the future of Scotland after just barely managing to save her husband from Jack Randall and suicide. Oh and then there’s the baby thing. But that’s why we love Claire. She’s gutsy and nothing puts her down for long. Caitriona Balfe, the actress who plays Claire, has done a wonderful job with the character. Claire is both relatable and irritating, not an easy job to pull off! Sam Heughan, who plays Jamie, was particularly brilliant in this episode when he begged his friend for a knife so he could kill himself. His face was unrecognizable in that scene. He looked like a completely different person.

Stephanie: Tobias Menzies, who plays Randall, along with Sam Heughan, were both so good in this episode. I feel kind of bad for Tobias because he’s probably going to get hate mail from crazed fans, and will surely get dirty looks on the street forever after this. Sam showed incredible depth with his reactions throughout the torture and afterward. Caitriona has also shown a lot of range-just think back to a couple episodes ago where she was singing and dancing on stage! This is a great cast, and I’m also looking forward to what season two brings.

Thanks to everyone for joining us for these chats!

Catherine Eaton is a contributor to The Stake. Catherine is a writer living in a western suburb of Chicago. She blogs over at sparrowpost.com and enjoys foraging around the neighborhood in her spare time.

Stephanie Scott is a Young Adult writer living in the western Chicago suburbs. Library superfan, award-winning TV-binger, and she just might be your cat’s new best friend. She tweets at @StephScottYA.

Follow The Stake on Twitter and Facebook

Filed Under: Reviews, TV Tagged With: Catherine Eaton, Diana Gabaldon, Outlander, Ronald D. Moore, Starz, Stephanie Scott

Is it possible that Game of Thrones just isn’t very good?

May 25, 2025 by Andrew DeYoung 3 Comments

Note: This is more rant than recap—but there are still spoilers from Season 5, Episode 7 of Game of Thrones.

Last week, the rape of Sansa Stark on Game of Thrones led many to publicly abandon the show—and last night, I experienced a strange feeling as I watched the latest episode: palpable envy at those who’d stopped watching and could now do something else with their Sunday nights. Not because the episode was offensive or stomach churningly violent (it was, I suppose, but no more than we’ve come to expect from your “average” episode of GoT), but because it just wasn’t very good. HBO’s flagship drama series is bold, unexpected, and shocking, every week inspiring hundreds of recaps, thousands of water cooler conversations, and millions of acts of online piracy. But it also, for long stretches at a time, just kinda stinks.

This is something that doesn’t get talked about much: how over-the-top bad the show can be from time to time. I’ve thought about this a number of times this season. Is there a possibility that GoT, after a handful of straight-up amazing initial seasons and shocking moments that challenged yet again the culture’s concept of what TV could and couldn’t be, just kind of…got dumb? And if so, was this dumbness perhaps baked into the source material (book readers seem to be less satisfied with every new entry in George R.R. Martin’s novel series), or is it instead a function of showrunners Benioff and Weiss outpacing Martin, running out ahead of him and stumbling without the handholds of the superior source material to guide them? This is starting to feel a bit like cultural blasphemy—Game of Thrones, bad? How dare you!—but there’s got to be a reason that The Mary Sue, for instance, finds it so easy to quit watching. The show’s been morally nauseating for years. It’s only just started to feel boring and inessential.

I can’t possibly level such a claim without at least attempting to back it up, so in the case of Andrew vs. Game of Thrones I give you exhibit A from last night’s episode: the ongoing fiasco that is this season’s King’s Landing plot. This storyline has always been borderline absurd—they seriously want us to believe that a group of monkish fanatics can throw the nobility in dungeons without any backlash?—but last night the absurdity actually revealed itself in a scene when young King Tommen lamented that he literally couldn’t free his wife the freaking queen because I guess all the men with swords were somewhere else or something. He was actually talking about bringing his army back to the city (where are they, by the way? any big battles recently?) to take King’s Landing back from the handful of religious nuts who’ve taken it over seemingly without opposition, and I’m like, wait. Don’t you have a Kingsguard? I’m pretty sure you do, because I saw them surrounding you in last week’s episode, and in another a couple weeks before that. I’ve no doubt that these trained swordsmen could easily and quickly dispatch an old man with bad knees and his army of barefoot dudes in burlap sacks.

And the thing with Cersei getting thrown in a dungeon by the same religious fanatics that she let loose on the city in the first place. I suppose this was meant to be satisfying, and I suppose it kind of was—except that I saw this shit coming weeks ago, and I’m pretty sure everyone else did, too. Since when did GoT, the show that gave us Ned Stark’s beheading, the Weddings Red and Purple, and the Mountain and the Viper, start telegraphing its punches? When did a series where almost anything could happen from week to week become so predictable? As sloppy as the plot in King’s Landing is, the character work is worse—because if I could predict what was going to happen, Cersei Lannister could’ve too, and though she may be a lot of things, dumb isn’t one of them. Her motivation for unleashing the Sparrows is so thin—it’s something to do with her love for her son, I guess, or her hatred of Margaery, I don’t really know—that if I think about it for more than thirty seconds, I begin to think that the whole thing is just a result of Benioff and Weiss not having fully thought through the world they’re trying to portray, or the people who live in it.

There’s plenty to gripe about in other plotlines, too. Let’s see—let’s go to Castle Black, where two men of the Night’s Watch take advantage of Jon Snow’s absence by attempting to rape Gilly. It’s yet more evidence of Benioff and Weiss’s weird obsession with loading up the story with as much sex and violence and sexual violence as they can. To make things even worse, the means they use to save Gilly from the predicament they’ve put her in is to bring out Jon’s direwolf, who’s been ignored in the narrative for so long that I can’t even remember his name (Ghost?), and he’s only really brought out when he serves the plot, anyway. (Call him a canine ex machina. Deus ex dogina? Whatever, you get the idea.) Then, the icing on the cake, the show has Gilly and Sam having perfunctory sex, because obviously it’s not enough for these two to have an emotional connection, which has been established over lo these many seasons—no, she ultimately has to be a prize for his bravery in standing up for her. (Nevermind that it was the dog that saved her and Sam was just kinda, you know, there.)

I’m being uncharitable. Other stuff happened last night, too. For instance, Ramsay once more demonstrated that he’s a bad dude (as if the interminable torture of Theon a few seasons back hadn’t accomplished that), we learned how thoroughly Theon has been broken (ditto), and the desperation of Sansa’s situation was re-emphasized (we got it last week, thanks)—but it’s all basically marking time until either Stannis or Brienne get off their asses and move this plot forward. (Oh, speaking of Stannis, we also get another scene of Melisandre obsessing over king’s blood. Did you know that she’s obsessed with King’s Blood? She’s obsessed with King’s Blood.)

The best thing to happen last night was for the series’ two best characters, Danaerys and Tyrion, to finally meet each other. But the payoff of that, it seems, will be delayed until next week.

So check back then. Maybe I’ll be less cranky.

Filed Under: TV Tagged With: TV, TV recaps

5 Best and Worst Moments in Outlander, so far

May 25, 2025 by thestakemag Leave a Comment

With the last episode of Outlander not airing until May 30, Stephanie and I decided it was time to look back and pick our top winning and losing moments for Outlander. So much has happened in this first season. First Claire traveled back through time by touching Standing Stones, leaving behind her husband and their 1940’s era. The Stones carried her to 18th century Scotland and things only got crazier from there. Since her arrival, Claire’s barely escaped being raped multiple times, she was nearly burned at the stake for being a supposed witch, and she was married off to a Scottish laird, Jamie Fraser, for her own safety. And that’s only a handful of things that have happened during this season.

On top of many exciting plot twists, Outlander has done a terrific and unusual job of keeping the show focused on Claire. Strong men may come and go on Outlander but in the end, Outlander is all about Claire, what she does, how she feels, and how everyone is affecting her great story.

Let’s start with five of Outlander’s best moments:

5. Casting

Stephanie: Given neither of us were die-hard Outlander fans before the series started, it’s safe to say we weren’t going to be upset by Jamie or Claire not looking exactly as we pictured them. Both leads are well-suited for their parts, and in particular Caitriona Balfe who plays Claire. While her character is 27, the actress herself is a little older, and for me that really sold me. She’s captivating with an emotional maturity, and I’m so glad they found her. All of the supporting cast from Jenny to Dougal are excellent, but by far the most memorable is Tobias Menzies who plays the sociopathic torturer Captain Black Jack Randall, and also Claire’s future-past husband Frank.

Catherine: It’s Balfe as Claire and Menzies as Randall/Frank who make this show. I can’t imagine Outlander without them. And even though Outlander centers heavily around Claire and Jamie’s steamy relationship, it’s the relationship between Jack Randall and Claire that has intense fire and energy. They’re electrifying whenever they’re in the same room together. It’s a shame that Jack is so evil but I’m guessing that’s what makes their scenes so riveting. It’s Good vs. Evil playing out on screen and both bring terrific nuance and feeling each time.

4. Beautiful Period Settings

Stephanie: Outlander is shot beautifully. From lush landscapes to dank castle interiors, the show immerses you in the experience of 1700s war-torn Scotland. Somehow the era is simultaneously unromantic while still hanging on to a bit of that whimsy and romance. Much like Jamie and Claire, the settings have their dark scenes, and their beautiful moments. The opening credits are perfect.

Catherine: The landscape is a character of its own on the show. The characters’ lives are ruled by weather and the difficulties of travel and it’s not hard to see why. A summer of bad weather means everyone could starve and with no paved roads in Outlander, it’s just endless trails of mud. Whenever the characters are outside, which is often, the sky, trees, and hills fill much of the screen. The weather sits like a mood over everything and it’s one of my favorite parts of the show.

3. Fabulous Clothing

Catherine: The work that’s gone into the show’s costumes is incredible. There wasn’t much fashion preserved from 1700’s Scotland, so Outlander’s clothing designers had to take educated guesses at what the Scottish people were wearing at this time. And they did a superb job. Every dress Claire wears is my new favorite and I love how the color of everyone’s clothing fits right into the landscape. Claire wears the best little shawlettes to keep her throat and décolletage warm and there’s a new one for each episode.

Stephanie: The costuming is wonderful. I love the gritty look a lot of the highlanders have, and Claire’s natural make-up free look. I’ve seen a lot from knitters on the scarves and shawls. I would wear any and all of them.

2. Complexities of Marriage

Stephanie: The heart of Outlander is an old romance trope: a marriage of convenience. Jamie offers Claire marriage as a means to protect her, given she’s literally wandering in what’s viewed as undergarments, alone in the highlands. The reality of that marriage is not a happily ever after, though they have their moments working toward that, through constant obstacles. Most romances on TV and in movies end with a couple getting together, so seeing their struggle play out is refreshing.

Catherine: There were many scenes that showing Claire and Jamie hanging out and enjoying each other’s company. I can’t think of any other show that does this with a couple and I loved it. Plus, there’s many scenes of Jamie listening to Claire and believing her. Her story is pretty far out there but for all that, it’s refreshing to see a man believing a woman when she speaks her truth. And last but not least, let’s not forget the honeymoon night. Though there was plenty of naked Claire in the shots, there was also plenty of naked Jamie- thereby winning over many a feverish female heart to undying love of Outlander.

1. Female Centered Storytelling

Stephanie: We’ve discussed this regularly in our recaps. Claire and the women in the cast have so many opportunities to decide their fates and step up to mold the story, exceeding beyond the era’s limitations. While Claire struggles against living in an era two hundred years in the past, she learns from other women like Geillis and Jenny how to use the power they do have to gain small freedoms. Their power merely fighting off bad guys, but thinking ahead, being decisive, and making choices in the best interests of themselves and those they love. This is probably the biggest draw to the show, in my opinion. Well, maybe second to shirtless Jamie.

Catherine: Outlander is a story about women. The men run around, killing each other and causing issues but everything comes back to Claire and what she choses to do. She has male allies but since her female allies have less power, the power they do wield is more fascinating. They’re cunning, covert, and often overlooked by the men. A great example of this is Jamie and his sister Jenny. He went on the run and when he returned to Lallybroch expected to be dubbed lord of the manor instantly, overlooking the massive job his sister undertook in running Lallybroch while he was gone. He finally thanked his sister for her work but it took some pains on her side to get it through his head. Without her, Lallybroch would have not have been there for Jamie to return to.

On to the worst list. While a few annoyances immediately sprung to mind, we both had to work at finding a full worst list. Let’s say worst is more what stood out to us as either not quite working, or common frustrations.

5.Claire’s Disinterest in Scottish Culture

Catherine: It never ceases to amaze me how Claire is utterly uninterested in the culture she’s been thrown in to. She does not study Gaelic (even Jamie nudged her about that) and for a daughter of an archeologist, she only has a glimmer of interest in relics presented to her.

Stephanie: True. This is an aspect I haven’t noticed as much, and I suppose I chalked it up to Claire feeling displaced and wanting to return back to her era. Now that she’s committed to staying with Jamie in the past, I’d like to think she’d adapt more.

4.Homophobia

Stephanie: I’ve heard this criticism of the books. I think the show has taken strides to paint Captain Randall as a truly disturbed psychopath that is less demonizing of his same-sex attraction and more focused on his sadistic fascination with Jamie all these years.

Catherine: The show gleefully embraces Claire’s cross dressing but every homosexual man presented is a creepy jerk. The Duke of Sandringham was fun but he was slimy and Captain Randall is the worst yet. There’s been no positive representation yet of a gay person.


3. Women’s Bodies Constantly Exposed

Catherine: The bodice ripping finally got to me at the witch trial scene. There had been plenty before with Claire constantly getting her clothes ripped off but Geillis did an amazing strip down to a murderous audience and it was finally too much. The constant exposure of vulnerable women bodies to violent men was little more than shock value.

Stephanie: I saw the witch trial scene as Geillis’ final spectacle to give Claire an out from the chaos, but yes, the literal bodice ripping on the show makes for some truly uncomfortable moments. My least favorite was Captain Randall’s physical assault on Claire right before Jamie comes to find her.

2. That Spanking Scene

Stephanie: It’s in the book, so not really the show’s fault. Or is it? The scene changed a bit by having Jamie give a remorseful, explanatory speech to Claire after he punished her like a child. Did it work? What didn’t work for me was the attempt to make the scene lighter with the jovial music while Jamie chased Claire around the bed. Claire wasn’t being playful, she was terrified.

Catherine: Balfe, who plays Claire, did not perform the scene like it was fun and playful. She acted like a terrified woman trying to survive and hold onto a sense of self. By doing so, Balfe took a stand for what the scene is to her. The playful music did not lessen the look on her face nor her attempts to defend her body. Balfe carried that scene and showed the viewers how messed up non consensual punishment truly is. That scene from the novel was never going to be easy and it wasn’t.

1. Constant Torture

Stephanie: Catherine, I think you mentioned that so far there was one lone episode where a woman wasn’t threatened. Threats, whippings, spankings, murder, beatings-for all the empowering moments the show provides, there is equal amount (or more) violence. For what many view as one of the modern era’s best romances, the violence is near constant and dark.

Catherine: Violence against women is a constant on the show and much of it appears for shock value. It’s a the biggest issue I have with Outlander and I’d like to see a lot less in Season Two. Besides violence against women, there’s also a lot of graphic violence, notably in the last episode, Wentworth Castle. I made it through the torture scenes somehow but afterwards asked myself if there was any point to seeing all the violence. It has shock value but little else.

Outlander has made terrific strides in presenting a story from a female viewpoint and all that viewpoint entails. But it falls into the cable show pitfalls of too much violence, homophobia and an all white cast. Season 2 is already in the production and with all the show has already done, there’s good hope it’ll do even more.

Catherine Eaton is a contributor to The Stake. Catherine is a writer living in a western suburb of Chicago. She blogs over at sparrowpost.com and enjoys foraging around the neighborhood in her spare time.

Stephanie Scott is a Young Adult writer living in the western Chicago suburbs. Library superfan, award-winning TV-binger, and she just might be your cat’s new best friend. She tweets at @StephScottYA.

Follow The Stake on Twitter and Facebook

Filed Under: TV Tagged With: Best and Worst, Catherine Eaton, Claire, Outlander, Ronald D. Moore, Starz, Stephanie Scott, torture

Oh, the places he’ll go

May 18, 2025 by Christopher ZF Leave a Comment

Fans of Louis CK are likely unfazed by the stand-up comic’s Saturday Night Live routine. CK hosted the finale episode last Saturday. And like many stand-ups before him, he used his monologue to spotlight his latest routine.

This time, it was 70s style racism, how parenting is like managing the Middle East crisis, and child molestation. None of these subjects are new to CK. He’s gone much (much) further in his stand-up on racism and child abuse in the past. But live TV is not a stand-up special, and hearing this kind of material on the networks is still shocking.

That there is humor in the horror of child molestation is hard to understand, but if anyone can find it, it is CK. Whether or not he succeeded is open to interpretation (this is comedy, after all). Political commentator Ken Rudin found it pointless and unfunny, and others out there agreed.

CK must’ve known what he was getting into (“How do you think I feel,” he quips, as the audience gasps in horror, “this is my last show probably.”)

Is it funny? You’ll have to decide for yourself. For my money, I thought it was pretty good, especially the part about fighting children. More than funny, though, I thought it was bold of SNL and NBC to let him go for it. Why else bring in CK?

Whatever you decide, can we at least agree it was funnier than the elves and the cobbler?

Follow The Stake on Twitter and Facebook

Filed Under: TV Tagged With: Comedy, Louis CK, Saturday Night Live, SNL, Stand-up

Game of Thrones Recap: “Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken”

May 18, 2025 by Andrew DeYoung Leave a Comment

Last night’s episode of Game of Thrones was titled “Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken.” These words apparently refer to House Martell—but as I process what I saw last night, I can’t help but wonder if the showrunners meant for us to apply them to Sansa Stark, who was raped by her new husband Ramsay Bolton in the final scene of the episode. Is Sansa truly unbent, unbowed, unbroken? Would it be naive and callous to think so? Rape is treated so casually in the world of Game of Thrones that last season the show portrayed a rape it didn’t even acknowledge as a rape, so for this season to portray the actual emotional consequences of Sansa’s rape—to show her as neither unbroken nor irreparably broken, but somewhere between—might count, I suppose, as an improvement.

Such are the nauseating calculations one has to make when watching Game of Thrones—well, at least this rape scene wasn’t as bad as the last one. On Twitter, some are understandably upset at the show for writing into the plot yet another rape that wasn’t in the books. They’re only half right: it’s true that Ramsay didn’t rape Sansa in the books, but Ramsay didn’t marry Sansa in the books either. Instead, he married her childhood friend Jeyne Poole, who was posing as Arya Stark, and the wedding night was even worse than the one we saw in the show. Instead of simply making Theon watch, I’m told he was actually forced to participate in sexually assaulting Jeyne before Ramsay raped her. So I guess we can feel lucky, or something, that we weren’t forced to watch Sansa be subjected to that?

Ugh. Real talk: Ramsay Bolton is a sadistic fuck, Sansa’s married to him, and for the show to stay true to the character and to the situation, Sansa had to learn about his true nature eventually. That doesn’t necessarily mean that this particular scene had to exist, of course. But it does exist, and it’s the least-bad version of the scene that I can imagine: not lingering voyeuristically on images of Ramsay’s violation, instead focusing on Theon, wearing the vicarious agony of Sansa’s ordeal on his face. Whether this scene turns out to be completely gratuitous to the show’s plot and character development remains to be seen; in any case, it was certainly upsetting, and I wouldn’t begrudge anyone who was finally done with the show because of it.

On to other plot strands. The episode actually began with Arya, washing a dead body with something approaching tenderness. In a show where the casual destruction of bodies is so pervasive, it was almost jarring to see Arya treat the body of a dead person with as much reverence as she did. But then, after she was done, the body was simply carted out of the room to who-knows-where—and Arya, attempting to follow, was again denied. I’ve been growing a little tired of the faceless men’s Zen koan style of education, all this business of serving and becoming no one before Arya can truly learn what it is she’s come to learn. Even so, there was a satisfaction in discovering that what Arya was meant to learn was not to become nobody, but to lie about who she was while keeping her desire for vengeance; not to serve the dead but to become more callous toward them, to create more dead by pushing the poison water on a sick girl. (Still: it’s no “wax on, wax off.”)

In Dorne, meanwhile, Jaime and Bronn have reached their destination, but instead of finding Myrcella Lannister in peril, they find her kissing a cute boy, her intended. She doesn’t need or desire rescue as much as Jaime had expected. Not, at least, until the Sand Snakes come to capture her, and Jaime and Bronn fight back. The scene almost seemed to belong to another show—between Bronn’s one-liners, Jaime’s Errol-Flynn charm, and the Sand Snake’s dexterity and use of interesting weapons (one wields a whip), it’s pure swashbuckling fun. But the scene also felt different in a bad way, not up to Game of Thrones’ usual standards. The ease with which Jaime and Bronn snuck into the palace (or the Water Gardens or whatever) was almost comical, as were the sudden abundance of guards showing up at the exact right moment. I’ve got no idea what happens next with both Jaime and the Sand Snakes in custody, but I’m confident we haven’t seen the last of any of them.

If Jaime’s not having much luck in Dorne, Cersei at least is seeing her plans work out better in King’s Landing—though to what end, I’m not sure. At an inquest into the sodomy accusations against Loras, the High Sparrow succeeds in marshaling enough evidence to justify further imprisonment and a real trial. He also ships off Margaery to jail for assumed perjury in the inquest. And Cersei and Tommen just let it happen. Cersei has certainly demonstrated her power to make the lives of those she doesn’t like difficult, but as I said last week, I don’t understand her endgame. Like Petyr Baelish, she’s a sly political manipulator, but unlike Littlefinger she operates too often from a place of emotion rather than cold, calculating reason. Judging by the look on her face, seeing Margaery carted off to prison may have pleased Cersei, but it’s not in her best interest for either Loras or Margaery to be ultimately convicted. As Lady Olenna made abundantly clear, the Tyrell alliance is an important one for the Lannisters. Cersei should be courting friends and avoiding war, not the other way around.

By episode’s end, though, it’s Tyrion who finds himself in the direst straits of the three Lannisters. Captured by slavers, he’s kept alive only as long as it will take them to find a “cock merchant” (such people, apparently, exist and make a good living in Essos) who can visually confirm that he’s a dwarf and thus validate the value of his…well, you get the idea. Jorah, meanwhile, is headed for the fighting pits of Mereen, where he can either get back in Dany’s good graces, or go down fighting like dear old Dad (he just learned of the elder Mormont’s death from Tyrion, who let it slip not knowing that Jorah didn’t know).

The episode, as I’ve said, was called “Unbent, Unbroken, Unbowed,” but I wish it had been titled “The Game of Faces.” There’s a part early in the episode where Arya says “I don’t want to play anymore!” and her cruel master replies, “One never stops playing the game of faces.” Then she’s led into a vast hall (the House of Black and White must be built like a TARDIS because it’s HUGE inside!) where a bunch of human faces—the faces, presumably, of the dead—are displayed on the walls and columns.

One never stops playing the game of faces. It’s as true in the rest of Westeros as it is in the House of Black and White—just as often true that the one who wins is the one who’s learned, as Arya is learning, to die. Those who allow their faces to betray their true motives, like Cersei, say, or Ramsay, seem destined to lose; those who’ve learned to use their faces to mask emotion rather than betray it, like Sansa, may suffer now but seem likely to win in the long run, biding their time, waiting for their opportunity to strike.

The best player of the game of faces is probably Petyr Baelish, who revealed new levels of duplicity in a conference with Cersei. On the surface, Littlefinger appears to have betrayed Sansa yet again—except he’s so good at hiding his real motivations that it’s likely he’s lying to Cersei, too. What Littlefinger has gotten for himself is the opportunity to march the Lords of the Vale on Winterfell unmolested by either Bolton’s men, who think he’s coming to assist them against Stannis, or the Lannisters, who think he’s allied with them. In reality, Littlefinger will probably do what Littlefinger does: arrive at the scene of battle, quickly discern the lay of the land, then take the side of whoever seems most likely to win. Whatever his allegiances, we now have three parties set to fight over Winterfell: the Boltons, who hold it, Stannis Baratheon, who wants to take it, and Littlefinger, who’s a wild card. Whenever they arrive, we’re set for an epic battle. For Sansa’s sake, I hope it’s soon.

Filed Under: TV Tagged With: Game of Thrones, TV recaps

Outlander – Season 1, Episode 15

May 17, 2025 by Christopher ZF Leave a Comment

Stephanie: Hi Catherine. This is the episode I’ve been dreading for awhile now: Wentworth Prison, where Jamie is physically and emotionally tortured by Captain Black Jack Randall. Reading something that is graphically disturbing is a very different experience than seeing it on screen. I had this same dilemma with whether to see the movie version of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. I enjoyed the book, and believe Lisbeth Salander’s sexual assault is pertinent to the story and to her character, but I didn’t want to see that scene played out in a theater. I still haven’t seen it. You can skim with a book, or sort of self-censor where you let your mind go, but with TV and movies, you either look away and miss things, or you face it head on. With this Outlander episode, I admit I watched a bit passively as a way to protect myself, until I got through it, and then went back to revisit a few scenes. In some ways it was just as horrifying as expected, but definitely more psychologically grotesque.

Catherine: It was a difficult episode to watch, no doubt about it. The hanging scene was hard to watch particularly when MacQuarrie’s neck didn’t break when he fell from the gibbet. He choked slowly to death and without someone pulling down as his legs (as horrifying as that was), it could have taken him a half an hour or so to die. Getting shot by soldiers, like Jamie proposed, ended life with fight instead of a miserable hanging. It was tough to watch and nothing got better because then there was Jack torturing Jamie. The strangest part of this episode is how Jack regarded Jamie with such a gentle inquisitive look on his face. Jack’s face visibly softens whenever he catches sight of Jamie and it adds an unusual element to all the horror. Jamie is a toy to Black Jack. A wondrous toy that never disappoints but still must be chastised and punished for its failure to comply with Jack’s wishes and that punishment is part of the charm. Captain Jack is an abuser amongst abusers, the shadow version of a Prince among Princes. No one checks his powerful hand and he uses all the means at his disposal to shred his victim’s soul to shreds. His only wonder with Jamie is the means it will take to break his spirit. And with Black Jack, the longer it takes to break someone, the better.

Stephanie: Black Jack Randall has been steadily set up as a sadist through his own speech to Claire when she was first captured by him, and in the flashbacks to Jenny’s near assault, and Jamie’s brutal whipping. This sadism is illustrated most clearly here when Randall saves Jamie from the noose purely for his own enjoyment to tear Jamie apart. Personally, I may have been just as disturbed, if not more, by the midseason scene when Randall has Claire half-stripped and bent over on the table. Maybe as a woman, that fear is more visceral to me since it’s such a core fear women have to be physically victimized by a man. For men, surely it’s just as visceral to see that play out on screen, but that fear of assault is typically not an everyday fear most men face. Not to minimize any men who have been victimized, but I think part of why it’s so shocking to see a strong warrior like Jamie being forced to grope and be kissed by a domineering man is this is rarely shown on screen, particularly in the mainstream.

Catherine: The attempted rape assault on Claire was bad but this episode…there were a few times I considered turning it off. The only thing that made it endurable for me was looking at how much time was left till the end. I also kept in the back of my head that violence like this does happen to people in real life and I need to recognize this and not turn away or deny it. The worst part was Claire’s hopeless sobbing as Jack nailed Jamie’s hand to the table and then kissed him. Jamie has proven he can take physical pain but trying to remain strong while Claire is groaning and weeping over him? He must carry his pain but hers as well. That’s unendurable. So there was that but I relished that Claire would likely save him. Claire! A tiny woman in this stone world of masculine violence! Saving her man! But it was not to be. Not this time.

Stephanie: Claire showed so much strength in this episode. It struck me first at the start when she played the part of a concerned family friend checking in on wayward Jamie at the prison. Playing up English ladyship with Christian virtues showed her cunning, and she seemed almost an entirely different person. She only broke that facade when the door closed, leaving she and Murtagh time to ruffle through papers in the prison warden’s office, looking for clues to help Jamie. What’s so heartbreaking, is how close Claire got to saving Jamie. Even in the dank cell, she found a moment to push back Captain Randall’s henchman, and then shove Randall himself into the wall, giving Jamie a moment to catch up. But Randall is devious, and immediately plays to Jamie’s one weakness: Claire. It’s most devastating when Randall kisses Jamie violently because it’s in the face of Jamie’s strongest bond of love-Claire. It’s not even really sexual, it’s just a power play that’s a giant F-U to Claire, a victory cry. (And THIS is what’s touted as the most romantic book series?!) Claire being a fighter gets a last power move of her own. I loved when she owned up to being a witch, and used her knowledge of the future to tell Randall the date of his death, after much theatrical lead-up. If he’s playing the psychological game, she can too. A small victory in the face of the torture Jamie still faces.

Catherine: Claire telling Jack his date of death was a stroke of genius! There’s something for that devil to stew over. When he pushed her down that hole, I thought for sure he had thrown her into an oubliette, a hole in a castle where they’d leave people to starve and die in the darkness. But phew! It was only a pit full of corpses that she could crawl out of and run off to find her allies. Trust Randall to fulfill his promise in a nasty way. I was pretty stunned he kept his word and let her out. He does play a strange game with Jamie, full of violence and teeny tiny moments of honor. Wentworth Castle is a brutal and unsympathetic place; it’s a wonder that there’s any refuge to be had. And yet there was and at the nearby house of one of Jamie’s mother’s former suitors, Sir Marcus MacRannoc. He offered his home as shelter but refused to sacrifice his family’s welfare for Jamie’s and I didn’t blame him.

Stephanie: Much to my disappointment, it looks like Claire’s escape did not involve punching a wolf in the face. It’s one of my favorite WTF moments from the book. She did at least hear the wolves, but alas, no wolf punching. I believe in the books it’s also Claire’s idea to let the cows loose, though I do like the idea that she has support and allies for another rescue attempt. There’s hope yet to get Jamie out of Wentworth. See you in TWO weeks, May 30, when the season finale airs.

Catherine Eaton is a contributor to The Stake. Catherine is a writer living in a western suburb of Chicago. She blogs over at sparrowpost.com and enjoys foraging around the neighborhood in her spare time.

Stephanie Scott is a Young Adult writer living in the western Chicago suburbs. Library superfan, award-winning TV-binger, and she just might be your cat’s new best friend. She tweets at @StephScottYA.

Follow The Stake on Twitter and Facebook

Filed Under: Reviews, TV Tagged With: Catherine Eaton, Diana Gabaldon, Outlander, Ronald D. Moore, Starz, Stephanie Scott, torture

On saying goodbye to a TV show

May 14, 2025 by Andrew DeYoung Leave a Comment

“Nostalgia is the pain from an old wound. It’s a twinge in your heart, far more powerful than memory alone.”

Those words were spoken by Don Draper, the main character of AMC’s Mad Men, way back in season one. He was pitching a client at the time, but I think it’s safe to assume he meant what he said all the same. Nearly eight years later, fans of the show are probably experiencing some similar nostalgia as Mad Men draws to a close. Saying goodbye to characters they’ve loved, some they’ve hated, a world they’ve spent enough time in that for some, it must feel like a second home. That hurts. It leaves a wound.

Finishing a television show is a complicated thing. It’s complicated for the creators—bringing a long-running show to a satisfying conclusion is a difficult and usually thankless task. But it’s complicated for viewers, too. Audiences spend more time with television shows than they do with nearly any other storytelling medium. The result is that series finales are not just the final chapter of stories; they’re valedictions, too, tearful farewells. Often, they can be as sad as saying goodbye to a beloved friend.

TV finales are fraught affairs these days. The golden age of television has brought with it high and almost unrealistic viewer expectations. TV used to be purely episodic—some episodes were good, some bad, but you rarely got the sense that you were watching a single story, a coherent arc that should be brought to a satisfying conclusion. With the advent of serialized TV storytelling came the expectation that TV finales should be not just decent episodes of television that give audiences a graceful emotional exit from the show, but decisive conclusions to years-long stories that wrap up and somehow justify everything that came before.

The golden age of TV has given us some great series, but few beloved finales. Battlestar Galactica and Lost are beloved television series with despised finales that many people feel ruined the shows; Breaking Bad got off a little easier but many still felt that the ending didn’t live up to the moral weight the show had tried to achieve. Perhaps the most successful finale of television’s golden age was, in many ways, its first: that of The Sopranos, which succeeded by pointedly not wrapping up the story, but leaving it completely indeterminate in a way that fans still argue about today. The Sopranos didn’t give us an exit but rather denied it; you might say that instead of ending, the show, in the minds of its fans, somehow goes on. (“…and on, and on, and on.”)

I may be making too much of this, but it seems to be no coincidence that the most iconic and beloved finales largely come not from the golden age of television but from the age preceding it, when the final episode of a television show gave us not the conclusion to a story we’d been collectively picking apart on blogs and message boards but gave us one more chance to hang out with characters we’d come over the years to love. MASH. Cheers. The finales of Seinfeld and Friends weren’t anything much, but they did do something that TV can’t do any more: capture the imagination of an entire culture. Heck, one of the most memorable finale-viewing experiences of my life was the show Wings. I still remember the plot of the finale—Joe and Brian came into a small fortune and had to decide whether they cared enough about Sandpiper Airlines to keep it going. I also remember (and I’m not at all ashamed to admit this, dammit) crying.

Mad Men will come to a close this Sunday. It’s likely to draw a small crowd—for all the show’s cultural currency, it’s never had a big viewership, and I’d wager (though I’ve not looked it up) that the audience for the finale of Wings, barely a footnote in the annals of pop culture, will dwarf that of the final episode of Mad Men. But for a lot of people, it will mean something. Mad Men is a bit more like The Sopranos than it is Lost or Battlestar Galactica—a serially-told story, yes, but also just episodic and aimless enough that come Monday, even if it failed to conclusively wrap up the threads we picked up way back in episode 1, the bulk of the conversation will be about the emotional and thematic exit it gave its viewers. Will it leave a wound? We’ll have to see. But on some level, I think the show already has.

Filed Under: TV Tagged With: Mad Men, TV

Game of Thrones Recap: Kill the Boy

May 11, 2025 by Andrew DeYoung Leave a Comment

“A good mother never gives up on her children,” Daenerys said last night. “She disciplines them if she must. But she never gives up on them.”

Then she pushes one of the masters of Mereen in front of her dragons, who proceed to light the guy on fire, rip him in half, and eat him before he’s finished screaming.

Yikes. Thanks for making Mother’s Day extra horrifying, Game of Thrones! It was hardly the cheeriest way to end a day dedicated to appreciating moms, to brunch and flowers and mimosas—but the ways in which motherhood, and parenthood in general, were played out in the episode were anything but accidental. In the world of Ice and Fire, politics is family, and family is politics. Last night was full of children both literal and figurative testing their status with a parent—and parents, like Dany, negotiating the difference between discipline, tough love, and outright violence as they tried to get their kids to shape up and fly right.

Daenerys Targaryen’s relationship with motherhood is complicated: her only baby, so far, was stillborn, but she’s become known as the “Mother of Dragons,” and in her role as the Breaker of Chains in Slaver’s Bay, she’s “Mhysa,” or mother, to the people that she’s freed. But being the queen of a city torn apart by years of violence and injustice—being the mother of Mereen—is no easy task. Last week, the Sons of the Harpy (yet another familial metaphor) wounded Grey Worm and killed Ser Barristan the Bold. Now, this week, Dany became her angriest, most ass-kicking self again: the avenging mother of dragons.

But is the avenging approach the right one for Dany? The right one for Mereen? Before he died, Ser Barristan was advising mercy; Daario Naharis, meanwhile, thinks she should just kill all the former masters and leave the former slaves to make their own city out of what remains. (It’s a tempting proposition, if nothing else, from a story standpoint; the faster Dany can move on from Mereen the faster she can bring everything she’s learned to the struggle for the Iron Throne in Westeros.) Instead, she listens to Missandei, who for some unaccountable reason still has faith in Dany’s skills as a ruler and tells her to listen to her own heart or something. What Dany ultimately decides to do is take on another familial role: not wife, but mother, to an advisor and the head of an old Mereen family who the Internet tells me is named Hizdahr zo Loraq. Considering she was threatening to feed him to a dragon the last time she saw him, this is sure to be a good and supportive marriage strengthened by bonds of mutual trust, respect, and—BAAAHAHAHA just kidding it’ll be a train wreck.

In the North, where Sam is reading up on Dany’s exploits, Jon Snow is another young leader working through the responsibilities of authority through a parent-child relationship of sorts—except that in this case, Jon’s both the parent and the child. Faced with a difficult decision, Jon’s advised by Maester Aemon to kill the boy. Only then, he says, can the man emerge. Given that the episode’s called “Kill the Boy,” it’s not too much of a stretch to say that this is an important scene. Aemon, you’ll remember, is a Targaryen himself, and as such he has more than a few reasons to be intimately familiar with the various symbolic deaths of leadership. His kinswoman is experiencing those deaths across the Narrow Sea in Essos; and now so is Jon, giving up any chance he might have had of popularity to try to make an alliance with the Wildlings.

What Jon’s trying to do here is not that dissimilar from Dany’s struggle in Mereen: he’s faced with forging bonds of peace between groups of people torn apart by years of violence and oppression. The men of the Night’s Watch all know people who’ve been killed by the Wildlings—one boy in particular, one of Jon’s supporters, saw his family killed by the Wildlings. But as Jon points out, the Night’s Watch have killed the Wildlings, too. An alliance is necessary if they have any chance of turning back the White Walkers. Jon needs to get the men he leads to give up their hatred of each other to see the bigger picture and unite against a greater threat. That’s no easy feat.

The third major setting for last night’s episode was Winterfell. It’s among the first places we were ever introduced to in Game of Thrones, but it’s changed over the years and the seasons, as Sansa points out: the place is familiar, but the people are strange.

Are they ever. Held by the Boltons, Winterfell is hardly the safe place Sansa knew it to be when she was a girl. She learns this firsthand when she meets Myranda, Ramsay Snow’s girlfriend and sometimes partner in sadism. At first, Myranda seems to be a friendly presence, complimenting Sansa’s dress and speaking kindly of her mother’s memory. (More mothers…) Sansa’s learned enough to be suspicious of Myranda, though, and the reasons for her suspicion are confirmed when Myranda points her to the creepy kennels, where she discovers a face from the past: Theon.

What a cruel scene it was. For Sansa to see a familiar face from her childhood might be a good, comforting thing—but seeing Theon was almost certainly anything but comforting, both because of what he’s become due to his torture at her future husband’s hands, and because of what Sansa still thinks that Theon did to her youngest brothers. Theon didn’t really kill them, but Sansa doesn’t know that. Roose and Ramsay do, though, which is what makes the scene at dinner so fascinating and awful.

It’s worth going through the dinner scene in a bit of detail. First, Ramsay stood and toasted his and Sansa’s pending marriage; Sansa pointedly didn’t drink to his empty sentiment. Next, Roose and his wife revealed that they’re expecting a child, and that the Maester thinks it’s a boy. Ramsay immediately sees his status as a favored Bolton son begin to slip away, and so he proceeds to do what Ramsay does best: make everyone else in the room miserable. He drags out Theon/Reek to pour some wine, then forces him to apologize to Sansa for killing her brothers. That Roose lets this charade take place says something interesting about him, I think—he’s not as obviously sadistic as his bastard son, but the look on his face suggests, I think, that he’s getting a kind of perverse enjoyment out of Sansa’s discomfort, and Theon’s.

Roose later tells Ramsay that he made a fool of himself at dinner, but I get the feeling that his heart’s not really in the scolding. Ramsay is his father’s son: born after Roose raped his mother, the wife of a man he’d just executed. When the mother brought Ramsay to her rapist, Roose decided to keep him because “I could see that you were my son.” The only difference between father and son is that Roose is a little smarter—he could easily put an end to Ramsay’s shenanigans if he wanted to, but he keeps the sick bastard around because his love for violence serves Roose’s ends, and the older man gets some pleasure out of observing his son’s sadism besides.

Yuck. I’m definitely cheering for both of these men to die—the only thing I’m not sure of is who I’d rather see do it. Stannis? He’s marching south from the Wall, so he’s the most likely to be the one to do it. But personally, I’m rooting for Jon Snow, or even better, Sansa herself, to be the one who holds the knife. Or maybe Theon. If he could be the one to finally kill his torturer, there would be a kind of catharsis there—if us if not for Theon.

Next week: back to King’s Landing, and to Arya!

Odds and Ends:

• Tyrion and Jorah Mormont’s adventures in Valyria and their run-in with the stone men was good stuff, even if it was mostly filler until they get where they’re going. Mysterious fallen societies are always interesting, and the stone men give a bit more emotional resonance to everyone’s fear of the dragonscale disease.

• Grey Worm loves Missandei! I wish these two could be the stars in a story that really deserved them, rather than occasional walk-ons in Dany’s story.

Filed Under: TV Tagged With: Game of Thrones, TV recaps

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • …
  • 24
  • Next Page »

Top Posts

  • Danielson is a sociopath? The guantlet is dropped on Karate Kid
  • Queen of Earth is the psychological horror film you’ve been waiting for
  • A 14 year old is arrested because his clock looked like a movie bomb
  • No Escape, Southeast Asia, and the failure of cinematic empathy
  • Media for the Millenials: Sense8’s grand, dramatic, cheesy success
  • Marquee Movie Parenting: No Escape and that daughter throwing scene
  • Book Review: Kelly Link’s Get In Trouble
  • The Stake Podcast - Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter
  • Botox, Bowie, and Beauty Standards: An inteview with Hermione Eyre on her debut novel Viper Wine
  • Book review: Pete Hautman’s Eden West

Podcasts

The Stake Podcast - Nightcrawler

Jake Gyllenhaal’s career performance highlights a great LA neo-noir

The Stake Podcast - Big Trouble in Little China

What the hell is going on in this movie?

The Stake Podcast - Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter

A half-Japanese, half-Minnesotan dark, eccentric work of art.

The Stake Podcast - M*A*S*H*

A war satire and a yahoo comedy wrapped up in 1970s chauvinism.

The Stake Podcast - Starship Troopers

A war satire. A gore-fest. A blockbuster flop. Would you like to know more?

To contribute, inquire, or complain, write the editor at: thestake.org(at)gmail.com
  • Contributors
  • Contact
  • Submissions
  • Newsletter

Copyright © 2015 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in