[閒聊] GOT S08 哲學家齊澤克的評論

[Victor70412 (挖挖鼻子沒事幹)]

https://ind.pn/2M3qYIj
Game of Thrones tapped into fears of revolution and political women – and lef
t us no better off than before

So justice prevailed – but what kind of justice?

The last season of the Game of Thrones has prompted public outcry and culminat
ed in a petition (signed by almost 1 million outraged viewers) to disqualify t
he entire season and re-shoot a new one. The ferocity of the debate is in itse
lf a proof that the ideological stakes must be high.

The dissatisfaction turned on a couple of points: bad scenario (under the pres
sure to quickly end the series, the complexity of the narrative was simplified
), bad psychology (Daenerys’ turn to “Mad Queen” was not justified by her c
haracter development), etc.

One of the few intelligent voices in the debate was that of the author Stephen
 King who noted that dissatisfaction was not generated by the bad ending but t
he fact of the ending itself. In our epoch of series which in principle could
go on indefinitely, the idea of narrative closure becomes intolerable.

It is true that, in the series’ swift denouement, a strange logic takes over,
 a logic that does not violate credible psychology but rather the narrative pr
esuppositions of a TV series. In the last season, it is simply the preparation
 for a battle, mourning and destruction after the battle, and of the battler i
tself in all its meaninglessness – much more realistic for me than the usual
gothic melodramatic plots.

Season eight stages three consecutive struggles. The first one is between huma
nity and its inhuman “Others” (the Night Army from the North led by the Nigh
t King); between the two main groups of humans (the evil Lannisters and the co
alition against them led by Daenerys and Starks); and the inner conflict betwe
en Daenerys and the Starks.

This is why the battles in season eight follow a logical path from an external
 opposition to the inner split: the defeat of the inhuman Night Army, the defe
at of Lannisters and the destruction of King’s Landing; the last struggle bet
ween the Starks and Daenerys – ultimately between traditional “good” nobili
ty (Starks) faithfully protecting their subjects from bad tyrants, and Daenery
s as a new type of a strong leader, a kind of progressive bonapartist acting o
n behalf of the underprivileged.

The stakes in the final conflict are thus: should the revolt against tyranny b
e just a fight for the return of the old kinder version of the same hierarchic
al order, or should it develop into the search for a new order that is needed?


The finale combines the rejection of a radical change with an old anti-feminis
t motif at work in Wagner. For Wagner, there is nothing more disgusting than a
 woman who intervenes in political life, driven by the desire for power. In co
ntrast to male ambition, a woman wants power in order to promote her own narro
w family interests or, even worse, her personal caprice, incapable as she is o
f perceiving the universal dimension of state politics.

The same femininity which, within the close circle of family life, is the powe
r of protective love, turns into obscene frenzy when displayed at the level of
 public and state affairs. Recall the lowest point in the dialogue of Game of
Thrones when Daenerys tells Jon that if he cannot love her as a queen then fea
r should reign – the embarrassing, vulgar motif of a sexually unsatisfied wom
an who explodes into destructive fury.

But – let’s bite our sour apple now – what about Daenerys’ murderous outbu
rsts? Can the ruthless killing of the thousands of ordinary people in King’s
Landing really be justified as a necessary step to universal freedom? At this
point, we should remember that the scenario was written by two men.

Daenerys as the Mad Queen is strictly a male fantasy, so the critics were righ
t when they pointed out that her descent into madness was psychologically not
justified. The view of Daenerys with mad-furious expression flying on a dragon
 and burning houses and people expresses patriarchal ideology with its fear of
 a strong political woman.

The final destiny of the leading women in Game of Thrones fits these coordinat
es. Even if the good Daenerys wins and destroys the bad Cersei, power corrupts
 her. Arya (who saved them all by single-handedly killing the Night King) also
 disappears, sailing to the West of the West (as if to colonise America).

The one who remains (as the queen of the autonomous kingdom of the North) is S
ansa, a type of women beloved by today’s capitalism: she combines feminine so
ftness and understanding with a good dose of intrigue, and thus fully fits the
 new power relations. This marginalisation of women is a key moment of the gen
eral liberal-conservative lesson of the finale: revolutions have to go wrong,
they bring new tyranny, or, as Jon put it to Daenerys:

“The people who follow you know that you made something impossible happen. Ma
ybe that helps them believe that you can make other impossible things happen:
build a world that’s different from the shit one they’ve always known. But i
f you use dragons to melt castles and burn cities, you’re no different.”

Consequently, Jon kills out of love (saving the cursed woman from herself, as
the old male-chauvinist formula says) the only social agent in the series who
really fought for something new, for a new world that would put an end to old
injustices.

So justice prevailed – but what kind of justice? The new king is Bran: crippl
ed, all-knowing, who wants nothing – with the evocation of the insipid wisdom
 that the best rulers are those who do not want power. A dismissive laughter t
hat ensues when one of the new elite proposes a more democratic selection of t
he king tells it all.

And one cannot help but note that those faithful to Daenerys to the end are mo
re diverse – her military commander is black – while the new rulers are clea
rly white Nordic. The radical queen who wanted more freedom for everyone irres
pective of their social standing and race is eliminated, things are brought ba
ck to normal.

齊澤克的批評集中於兩點：

自由保守主義——這群人總是認為想要用革命推翻暴君必然只會產生暴君，但顯然GOT推翻
丹妮莉絲之後選出了一個，全知、無權力慾的跛子，還是個白人，而這正符合現代人所要
的，而當丹妮莉絲的軍隊裡顯然更多元自由，好比有黑人指揮官時，這狀況一旦被推翻，
所有事情又回到了原來的狀態。但難道革命只有這條路嗎？革命不是為了尋找一個時代的
新秩序嗎？

厭女的——我們不能忽略寫這個劇本的是兩個男性，而顯然他們透露出一種對於顯露政治
慾望女人的厭惡，丹妮莉絲的觀點充滿了瘋狂歇斯底里，駕馭龍和焚燒房屋和人民，表達
了父權意識形態，害怕強大的政治女性。丹妮莉絲在掌權之後，毫無劇情內的發展理由（
說書裡面有的這顯然不是什麼好藉口）就發狂，甚至最後由囧來拯救瘋掉的女王——就好
像那些老式沙文主義的寓言裡面的結局，一刀了結夜王的艾利亞也不可以到政治中心，她
必須要離開，所以她選擇遠行，不然就會危害到男性在政治中的地位。

結語：D&D出來受死吧。

--
                          [當仁不讓]
推 Hanbor: 事實上就是他成功了 不過很多案例太牽強
→ Hanbor: 插圖本來就是翻畫 連把圖面精緻化都不行有點誇張
→ Hanbor: 講的好像是隔壁賣魯肉飯肉燥飯 人家就不能賣一樣
→ Hanbor: 是有點投機取巧 不過插畫家還是設計這行業 只能這樣生存
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 118.163.153.95
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/EAseries/M.1558517383.A.67B.html
推 luvfilm: 齊澤克用哲學評論電影/小說/影集真的一絕 我沒跟GOT但看
推 shyuwu: 老實說，如果灰蟲子能在丹妮死後控制住那群調性和無垢者
→ shyuwu: 完全相反的多斯拉克，那他的能力其實是相當強的
推 mysmalllamb: 說得好！其實我覺得這樣的劇情發展再現我們這醜陋的
→ mysmalllamb: 現世，並無不可；只是劇情呈現上對這樣的發展帶有什
→ mysmalllamb: 麼立場、又用什麼視角去觀看它並引起觀眾的觀感，那
→ mysmalllamb: 可以有截然不同的選擇。
→ luvfilm: 這篇依然會心一笑 他看得很真 真到像在酸人 XD
推 Acinonyx: 牽扯到仇女…很無言 dnd罪狀很多 但不包括這個
推 Acinonyx: 現在是牆倒眾人推 給他們安什麼罪名沒人會抗議
→ Acinonyx: 反例：三傻 老玫瑰
三傻有被提到喔！
留下（作為北方自治王國的女王）的人是Sansa，一種受當今資本主義喜愛的女性：她
將女性的柔軟和理解與良好的權謀相結合，從而完全適合新的權力關係。女性的邊緣
化是關鍵的，也就是一般自由保守主義的結局教訓：革命必須出錯，它們會帶來新的暴
政。（齊澤克的意思大概是說，他們透過厭女的戲碼來表達出一種保守思想。）
推 lyt40: 贊成仇女＋1！安排珊莎的強暴戲，說那是女性成長的過程(吐
→ lyt40: 血)
※ 編輯: Victor70412 (118.163.153.95), 05/22/2019 17:57:43
推 jerry8432: 推 齊澤克    看他電爆龍蝦博士真的很爽
推 celya6223: 推推
推 claudia0212: 推
推 Grrr: 他的觀察很正確
推 smonke: 這真是完全打到痛點啊 哈哈
噓 ck326: 老實說評論阿雅那段我懷疑這個人到底有沒有看過GOT???
→ ck326: 工三小，阿雅本來就是遊俠風格，探險才符合她的人設
→ ck326: 如果跑去搞政治才莫名其妙
→ ck326: 現在很多所謂的評論，我很懷疑到底有沒有看過每一集 GOT
→ ck326: 還是只看過最後一集就跟風亂寫評論
這個你就說對了，老齊甚至本人承認自己常沒看過電影就寫評論，或是看個一兩集就寫
了，他的看法都是從隻字片語的解析創作的心理狀態還有意識形態，就當作參考看看囉
※ 編輯: Victor70412 (118.163.153.95), 05/22/2019 19:09:06
推 fire60743: 靠竟然是齊澤克
推 deutyi: 艾莉亞的看法實在很不認同，她早就顛覆傳統女角很多很多了
→ deutyi: ，為什麼一定要把每個角色（尤其是女角）都塞進權力中心
→ deutyi: 才不叫歧視或平權？
推 orzisme: 他完全沒講錯。D&D真的是厭女。看看他們怎麼去扁平冰火
→ orzisme: 裡豐富多面的女性角色？甚至還說的出那種噁心的強暴成長
→ orzisme: 論。
推 orzisme: 至於政治方面。我覺得他們只是想討好美國主流。簡單粗暴
→ orzisme: 的呈現。尤其體現在龍媽線。龍媽線其實應該有許多關於政
→ orzisme: 治的討論。但他們以前只想演開掛。演龍。所有衝突都很簡
→ orzisme: 化。再不行就直接用武力碾壓。錯失了非常多描寫她矛盾與
→ orzisme: 統治問題的時候。最後收不了。就亂收了
推 mysmalllamb: 搓湯圓的保守主義政治也不止美國主流，全球好多地方
→ mysmalllamb: 都正流行著～
推 valeria: 我只希望D&D從今以後都不要碰任何一個女性角色，每當看到
→ valeria: 他們經過他們手中糟蹋的女性角色就眼神死
推 j27910681: 什麼都可以扯到仇女真的很棒，一個看都沒看過的雲觀眾
→ j27910681: 做的評論有什麼參考價值
推 j27910681: 阿雅從來就不是眷戀權力的人，三莎當上北境之王到底有
→ j27910681: 什麼不妥？把龍媽黑化說成仇女更是愚蠢無比，同樣火燒
→ j27910681: 平民的瘋王是男的所以他沒事嗎？
推 j27910681: 被編劇扁平化的男性角色多到數不勝數，怎麼就沒聽你們
→ j27910681: 這些偉大哲學家提幾嘴？趁著牆倒眾人推就要借題發揮，
→ j27910681: 反正隨便扣什麼帽子都行，真的是有夠棒
→ rugia813: 看到這種啥都要PC的觀點真的是翻白眼
推 mysmalllamb: 其實我覺得珊莎被編劇黑化得比較嚴重，被描繪成一個
→ mysmalllamb: 部落主義的心機者，世故高傲地把理想主義者逼入牆角
→ mysmalllamb: ，等他們被逼瘋後再來名正言順地收割；反而龍媽的黑
→ mysmalllamb: 化還比較有種理想主義者黯然殞落的悲劇感。當然以劇
→ mysmalllamb: 情細節來說兩邊都有很多硬拗...
推 orzisme: 女角被嚴重扁平化從前面季就有在講了。他們對女角的分類
→ orzisme: 差不多就是能打的跟搞陰謀的。拍成長不如拍床戲。第五季
→ orzisme: 就爆過一波輿論。並沒遲至第八季才發生。
推 jerry8432: 他是在說龍女燒平民這轉折極不合理 干瘋王屁小關係？
推 orzisme: M大我認為北境想獨立並非是部落主義。龍媽也不是理想主義
→ orzisme: 者吧。而且她的東方經驗在西方還有極大的文化差異。
→ orzisme: 北境獨立應該更類似於蘇格蘭和英的關係。
推 mysmalllamb: 當然北境獨立有其文化、民意、歷史經驗，是珊莎必須
→ mysmalllamb: 努力而觀眾也都會樂觀其成的事。但在這季囧努力打異
→ mysmalllamb: 鬼時，珊莎被描繪到的是完全沒在顧及眼前異鬼、而只
→ mysmalllamb: 在意誰稱王誰稱臣。我不認為珊莎只是這樣的人，但這
→ mysmalllamb: 季她都只被賦予這樣的戲份... 至於理想主義嘛，那當
→ mysmalllamb: 然只是一個僅限個人腦中的理想啦。
推 alejandroW: 仇女很明顯是事實
推 j27910681: 安排給某個女角的情結不合理=仇女?第八季瓊恩的劇情也
→ j27910681: 不合理阿，小惡魔的劇情也不合理阿，布蘭的劇情也不合
→ j27910681: 理啊，詹姆的劇情也不合理阿，怎麼就沒看到有人說編劇
→ j27910681: 仇男啊？
→ j27910681: 女權納粹就只會借題發揮趁著順風偷渡自己噁心的政治思
→ j27910681: 想真的是有夠棒
女性主義終歸只是一種詮釋的角度，並不單單只是因為劇情的不合理就強塞論點，你可以
有自己的解讀，不過這麼激動把主張論點的人掛上納粹的名號，總覺得很微妙呢(^^)a|||
推 modert5728: 給女角強暴戲床戲說是角色成長和劇情，這就是不合理啊
→ modert5728: 你有看到哪個男角被強暴才成長的嗎？
→ modert5728: 編劇確實一再地用男性凝視去塑造劇情中的女角
→ modert5728: 不要每次聽到女權兩字就嚇到倒彈好嗎？到底是多害怕自
→ modert5728: 己失去在父權社會所獲得的地位
※ 編輯: Victor70412 (140.112.30.226), 05/23/2019 11:56:19
推 Victory2: 哇，是那個齊澤克耶！
推 pattda: 想說這角度來看這部戲的不足可能要晚點再論 沒想到
→ pattda: 還是有人先發難XD
推 pattda: 好萊塢不是仇女 是男性至上 經由娛樂將這觀念傳遞出去
→ pattda: 做幕後也只是跟隨以前做的片來看來學 DD主寫後就開始一堆
→ pattda: 舊好萊塢式的故事