Hello again, “Throning It In” readers. Come, let us process together all that we have seen. And oh Lord of Light, it was a lot. This episode
didn’t fuck around. It tilted headlong into sweet, sweet death and
destruction! And dust. So much dust. Fans of dust (I know you’re out
there), this was your episode! But before we get to that, a quick word
about what an eventful week this has been offscreen for America’s
least-favorite favorite TV show. Poor Game of Thrones was forced to walk naked through the streets of King’s Landing for the minor crime of a stray coffee cup as well as the apparently much more serious matter of an insufficiently heartfelt good-bye to a cartoon wolf.
The HBO subscriber-base rabble is becoming increasingly hostile toward
this show in its waning days. Heading into last night’s episode, there
was the strong stench of revolution in the air, but I suspect the awful
spectacle did much to jam the senses and pulverize even the most
critical fan into submission and then … quite a bit farther. Let’s get
to it!
The
episode opens on Varys, whose penmanship is truly lovely. I mean, I
guess important stuff is going on, but if you can’t take time to
appreciate penmanship like this, well, I just don’t know. It’s
spectacular. Anyway, Varys is stirring shit up Varys style, letting
someone know who the real king is and so forth, and then a little girl
comes in and informs him that Daenerys has not been eating. I’m going to
cut right to the chase here and point out that this is the most
important piece of news in the whole episode. The next time someone
tells me they’re going on a “juice fast,” I’m going to remind them of
the events of this episode of Game of Thrones.
It is SO IMPORTANT to eat healthy meals throughout the day. Failing to
do so can radically affect your state of mind and make you turn INSANE.
But I’m getting too far ahead …
Next
up, Jon Snow arrives at wherever this place is and is greeted by Varys,
who pitches him on betraying Daenerys and taking his rightful place on
the Iron Throne. Varys breaks it to Jon that there’s a 50 percent chance
that Daenerys is an ultraviolent lunatic, and Jon responds by telling
Varys that he’s not good with riddles. That isn’t a riddle, Jon. It’s a
troubling statistic. But oh well. Jon’s done listening. He doesn’t want
to be king. Next we have a very dark and foreboding scene between Tyrion
and Daenerys, in which she seems (a) nuts, (b) right about everything,
and (c) REALLY hungry. She knows that Varys has been trying to derail
her throneward journey, and she’s very fixated on how much Sansa hates
her. That has me worried for next week. I’m now predicting that Daenerys
is going to swoop down on Winterfell in the series finale and burn it
up, and then burn up every other single thing in the entire world after
that. And my record of predicting things on this show is pret-ty
solid. This scary scene ends with a close-up shot of Daenerys’s
suddenly ashen face, and we have a good long time to contemplate the
ravages of those skipped meals. Trouble ahead!
After
that we see Varys again. He seems to have considered that perhaps
bad-at-riddles Jon is too dumb to be king, and he’s burning his gorgeous
letter. That’s when Grey Worm shows up with an unmistakable “You’re
about to get burned alive by a dragon” look on his face. And sure
enough, Varys gets marched out to the beach, where Tyrion and Jon stand
by as Daenerys passes sentence on Westeros’s most notable professional
gossip. Tyrion and Varys mark the occasion profoundly, and Varys’s final
words are “Good-bye, old friend.” Those are perfectly fine final words,
but they’re nothing compared to what Conleth Hill, the actor who plays
Varys, said when asked about what he’d miss now that Game of Thrones is over. He said, “I’m going to miss some of the people and all of the money. That’s what I’ll miss.”
Brother, I hear ya. Daenerys’s dragon lights Varys up as everyone looks
on, and oddly, Varys doesn’t let out a peep. We don’t get to see him,
but, by the sound of it, he is totally chill about burning alive. That
sure made me feel better about it. If he doesn’t mind, why should I?
Then
we see Daenerys and Grey Worm still thinking about Missandei. They
don’t appear to have transitioned out of the anger phase of grief, which
is problematic. Daenerys talks about when they crossed the Narrow Sea,
and it suddenly occurs to me that she talks about that a lot. Crossing a
narrow sea is really not that impressive an accomplishment, lady.
You’ve done better stuff. Let that one go. Jon Snow pops in, and
Daenerys talks about how unloved she is compared to him and about how
she can only rule through fear. Then she puts the moves on Jon, who is
not into it, and Daenerys takes that as proof that love is not an option
for her. But I think she’s forgetting that the reason Jon doesn’t want
to get it on with her is that they are brother and sister, not that
she’s unlovable. By the way, a lot of Game of Thrones fans seem to disagree that Jon and Daenerys are brother and sister but I checked. They are.
Next
up is a scene between Tyrion and Daenerys that I found very confusing,
but I’m sure that’s my fault. I got bored and started thinking about
something else. Is that too honest? Tyrion is begging Daenerys to, what,
surround the city and wait until the people rise up against Cersei, but
Daenerys wants to attack? And Tyrion is afraid that any such attack
would incur massive civilian casualties and turn the people against
their new queen? Is that what’s happening? At some point, though,
Daenerys says “Mercy is our strength,” which makes it sound like she’s
agreeing with Tyrion. Maybe I should go back and rewatch this scene.
(Note: I didn’t.) Anyway, Tyrion tells Daenerys that when she hears the
bells, it means the city is no longer being defended by those loyal to
Cersei and the attack should be called off, and Daenerys tells Tyrion
that Jaime is in their custody. That much I got.
Then
we have a scene at an army encampment, where Tyrion says he’s going to
ask Davos a favor and then reminds Davos what a great smuggler he is.
The scene ends on a mystery! What is the favor? Well, we never find out.
Right? Did I miss something? I do not know what this scene was about.
Then Arya and the Hound show up and pass through camp on their way to
commit some very important murders. Then we take a break for a little
comedy as Tyrion tries to speak Unsullied language. Ha ha ha. What fun,
now shut up and get to the death and destruction, thank you very much.
Then Tyrion proposes a really terrific idea to his brother: Jaime should
help Cersei escape and then make sure the bells ring when they leave
the Red Keep. It’s a perfect way of ending the siege of King’s Landing
without a single person even getting a scratch. All it requires is for
Daenerys to attack later than she intends to and for Cersei to suddenly
become reasonable and realistic and humble about her chances of winning
the battle. It can’t fail! Then we have a little
table-setting: We see the Tongueless Navy, peasants streaming into the
gates of King’s Landing, the Hound and Arya skulking in with them, and
the Golden Company looking spiffy in their fighting suits. In the middle
of all this, Tyrion mentions his precious bells to Jon, who looks at
him like he’s nuts. Jon has some idea that pretty-sounding bells aren’t
really going to play that big a role in the day’s events. Maybe he’s not
so dumb after all. Then, shit starts happening.
The
last remaining dragon swoops down on Euron’s navy, and all of a sudden,
giant crossbows pose no danger to dragons at all. None whatsoever. How
did these crossbows kill the other dragon so efficiently? Why couldn’t he dodge
these giant arrows? Did he have poor eyesight? It’s possible. I guess
nobody in Westeros is making eyeglasses for dragons. Am I working harder
to make sense out of this discrepancy than the Game of Thrones writing
staff did? Probably. I guess we’re meant to feel that the sheer power
of anger renders giant crossbows ineffective. If those fuckers hadn’t
killed Missandei, they could have shot this dragon out of the sky too,
but now, the dragon is pissed and can fly real good. Deal with it!
Next
up, we see the Golden Company make a classic military blunder by
forgetting that things can also happen behind them. They did not imagine
for one second that the dragon might obliterate the city wall from the
inside and start roasting soldiers with abandon. The Dothraki horde then
charges from the front, and I will say this for the Golden Company: Elephants would not have helped.
What follows is a perfectly delightful battle scene.
Good guys romping all over bad guys with a charming level of gore. A
total joy to behold! Cersei’s creepy Hand of the Queen shows up by her
side and delights in telling her all the awful news about how the battle
is going, and Cersei takes it in stride. She believes her people will
fight to the bitter end to defend her. And then, right away, we see how
incredibly wrong she is when her soldiers are surrounded and they get
all mopey and sad and just give up. And then we hear the cries of “Ring
the bell!” At that point, we’re left to consider just how silly Tyrion
was to be so worried about this battle. This was the bloodbath that was
supposed to annihilate so many civilians? It was over in a few minutes
and only killed soldiers. This is a very good outcome. All that’s left
to do is negotiate a surrender for Cersei and get on with the rest of
our wonderful lives in the splendid swords-and-sorcery world of this
neat-o television program.
But
wait, what’s that? Daenerys looking crazed and panting atop her one
sharp-eyed dragon? Don’t tell me she didn’t bring snacks along for the
big battle! If she still hasn’t eaten, her blood sugar must be terribly
low and there’s no telling what she’ll do!! Oh nooooo.
Yes,
sadly, now comes what felt like, and probably was, an hourlong festival
of mindless, pointless destruction and death. Everything must go!
Because why not?
All
sorts of other things happen while peasants were being raped and burned
alive for no reason. Euron and Jaime have a chance encounter and fight
it out over their love of Cersei. They both get killed, but Jaime’s
killing doesn’t stick. I think he might have said “Time out” right
before getting stabbed. Anyway, he charges off to save Cersei even
though it’s way too late to pull off Tyrion’s awesome plan. The Hound
and Arya arrive in the Red Keep, and the Hound cautions Arya against a
life of vengeance-seeking. She thanks him and gives up on killing
Cersei. Or does she? Read on for my theory on that!
And then we get the big, long-awaited showdown between the Hound and The Mountain,
the highlight of which is the moment when Cersei scoots past the Hound
like “I’ll leave you two boys to it” and gets the fuck out of there. The
epic battle between these two brothers is shot like a CGI dream, with
golden light streaming through dust clouds as the ground crumbles
beneath their feet. Early in the battle, the Mountain’s helmet comes
off. I will leave the Anakin Skywalker comparisons to everyone else and
take the contrarian position that the Mountain is surprisingly handsome.
They are as evenly matched as we always knew they would be, but at one
point, the Hound gets the better of his big brother and sinks his sword
deep into the Mountain’s chest. That’s it, huh? Nope. He must have
called time out too, because this fatal stab doesn’t bother the Mountain
in the slightest. To his credit, the Hound actually seems fairly amused
by his inability to kill his brother after all these years. The poor
guy had no idea his brother was an immortal Frankenstein. All you can
really do is laugh at that point. Shortly after the Mountain pulls his
signature move — the thumb-to-eye skull-crush maneuver that has
basically not stopped playing across my mind since he pulled it on Inigo
Montoya several seasons ago — the Hound decides they might as well both
go down together, and off they plunge into the void, where it seems
probable that the Hound dies, but there’s no reason to believe that the
Mountain gets hurt at all. Oh well.
Then
Cersei and Jaime reunite and head out to safety, Jon realizes his own
troops are likely to be incinerated next and orders them out of the
city, and Arya tragically botches a peasant rescue. We rejoin Jaime and
Cersei under the Red Keep, where their escape route has been demolished.
Cersei finally seems to get what Tyrion has been saying all along about
her baby. But it’s a wee bit too late. The ceiling starts to cave in on
them, and here is my big theory about this episode. Ready? Okay, all
season long I have been waiting and waiting for Arya to do that trick
where she can put on someone else’s face and then kill somebody. I boldly predicted a few recaps ago
that she was going to kill the Mountain and then wear his face to kill
Cersei. But it appears I was just a little bit off. What I think
happened in this episode is that Arya wore the face of the ceiling of
the basement of the Red Keep and then killed Cersei by falling down on
her, just like she told Ed Sheeran she was going to do! If that theory
sounds dumb to you, well, yeah, it sounds dumb to me too — just dumb
enough to be true!
In
the final moment of the show, Arya wakes up covered in dust, like you
would if you had just impersonated a crumbling ceiling in order to
murder someone, and she sees a beautiful white horse and rides off into
the final episode, in which Winterfell and everything else will be
destroyed by a dragon.
Okay, that’ll do it! Tonight, by the way, was also the series finale of Veep,
which, as I have never failed to point out to you in these recaps, I
was in this season! I do hope you’ve had a chance to check it out,
because Veep was a very special and hilarious
show, and I dare say they sent it off brilliantly. And that brings me to
the one regular feature of this column. Which guest role should I have
been cast in, in this episode of Game of Thrones?
Once again, it’s slim pickin’s. There was one frantic peasant who had a
nice moment with Arya. I think he cried out, “Where’s my wife?!” I
would have given them some alts, other stuff he could have been looking
for as the city was reduced to rubble all around him. “Where’s my class
ring?!” “Where’s my top hat?!” “Where’s my dwarf cock?!” (deep-cut
callback).
All
right, friends. See you next week, unless HBO decides we don’t deserve
the last episode because of all your complaining. Careful!
Do you hear the bells, and do they even matter? True to Game of Thrones form, penultimate episode “The Bells” gave us what’s been missing from this final season: quite a few major deaths.
At last! The series that made its name killing off its biggest
characters with gleeful abandon has shed its plot armor and given us the
glorious, terrible death scenes we mostly expected would play
throughout the final season. The Clegane brothers: dead! Jaime
Lannister: dead! Cersei and her probably-not-baby: dead! So what, dare
we ask, is left to make sense of as we head into the final 80-some-odd
minutes of this story? Gather ’round, ye little doves, as we slide into
the end of Game of flippin’ Thrones.
Do we feel any sympathy for Dany? Our
Mother of Dragons wasn’t feeling particularly maternal this Mother’s
Day, preferring to rain down ash and fire on the people she was
allegedly showing up to save. But it’s hard not to see the tragedy of
her rise as Mad Queen Dany, regardless of the arguably hackneyed and
rushed writing that got her there. Remember: This is the woman who was
sold off like cattle and raped after losing everything. Dany, for a
long, long time wanted to break the wheel, and all the chains, in order
to give freedom to the people. Plus she just lost all her closest
confidants, another dragon child, and feels betrayed by the man she loved and Varys. Wouldn’t you call that a particularly bad couple of days?
How did we get here? From
a book reader’s perspective, Dany going mad feels completely in line
with the story George R.R. Martin has been telling all along. I, for
one, always assumed Dany would go mad, driven by some quick succession
of tragedy and an inability to be seen as anything other than an
outsider to the people. (Plus the whole “Jon is Aegy Targs” thing.) It
just kinda stinks that everything about this progression in the last
three seasons has felt more plot-driven than fueled by character
development, which is how Martin has always written his meandering
version of the story. Those things are also what made certain choices
that lead to tragedy and heartbreak (Ned Stark) all the more real and
affecting on-screen, even when they’re shocking. This is what made Game of Thrones the phenomenon it has become.
Dany’s totally gonna die next week, right? It sure feels that way, but more on that later.
Why did Varys take off his rings before he died? Good
question! I hope they’ve been left there for someone else to find,
maybe in some epilogue where a new ruler, determined, hopes to rise in
the name of justice. Or maybe he just knows it would be a pity to let
his jewelry go to waste in the flames. Think about the economy!
Where in the seven hells did all those Dothraki come from? Didn’t nearly all the Dothraki die up at Winterfell? Sure, we got an offhand remark last episode about “the remaining Dothraki” but did anyone imagine that large of a horde was still going strong? How convenient!
Some of those little kids in King’s Landing are going to be part of the next revolution, right? There
were a LOT of shots of children in this episode, and I couldn’t help
but wonder—given how many of our stars were literal kids when they
started on the series—if that’s setting up whatever bittersweet ending
we’re going to get. Maybe in some epilogue we’ll see some of these
King’s Landing children suiting up, heading off on their own journeys,
ready to take back the rule of the Seven Kingdoms for a cause that’s far
more just?
How was Jaime that strong when he was basically dying? The things we do for love??
But
seriously, because Arya surviving that fiery-death moment puts
literally everything in doubt: Are Cersei and Jaime definitely dead?
Just because we definitely are going to need some confirmation. It
felt like they were dead, given how much of the castle was above them
(all of it). And what better way for these two to go out than together,
am I right?
What was with all the wildfire? No,
all that green fire wasn’t some sea-witch-ified undead Rhaegal giving
Drogon an assist from below — it was wildfire exploding. You may have at
first assumed, as I did, this was the outcome of some sort of “burn it
all down” mutually-assured-destruction plot of Cersei’s. But then I
realized it probably wasn’t that at all, but rather a callback to a
rumor in the novels that was alluded to on the series — later confirmed
by Tyrion when he was temporarily hand to Joffrey — that there was
stockpiles of wildfire stowed underneath much of King’s Landing, put there by Dany’s mad father. His last words were “burn them all.” Like father like daughter, I guess!
Where is Arya going? If you didn’t watch the trailer for next week, let me spoiler it for you: not very far! No, she hasn’t gotten on a ship to see what’s West of Westeros (yet),
she’s still in King’s Landing as we head into the final minutes of the
series. Something tells us she’s not going to be too pleased with how
Jon’s auntie-girlfriend handled the war, and the show previously
featured a prophecy from the Red Woman (Melisandre) telling Arya she
closes a pair of eyes that are green (like Dany’s) forever, after
closing eyes of brown (Frey), and blue (the Night King). So that feels
like a good guess to venture: She’s here to kill the queen! But she may
have to fight someone else for that crown…
Who’s going to kill Dany? Ahh
yes, the biggest question of all. For this one, it seems fairly
obvious: It’s got to be Arya or Jon Snow. Given the prophecy and how
well those things have turned out (not great), I actually do not think
Arya will be the one to kill her. That honor will go to Jon Snow, noble
bastard that he is, and he will wear the decision as a necklace around
his soul, fulfilling his purpose in the song of ice and fire, and
ensuring this miserable know-nothinger is truly miserable and sad
forever.
But could Dany also just win and either turn over a new leaf or start some evil empire? Sure,
absolutely she could. LOL on that first suggestion, especially. But
anything is possible, and the hero turning into the villain and starting
some Westerosi Villain Takeover would be a pretty messed-up way for the
series to end, and therefore very Game of Thrones. But something tells me this show—which George R.R. Martin has said is still following his outline—would do us as dirty as all that.
Okay, so who do we think is going to end up on the throne? The
obvious answer here is Jon Snow, which means it absolutely will not be
Jon Snow. This then means that the smartest leaders who maybe most
deserve it—like Tyrion Lannister or Sansa Stark—also will not. So who’s
left: Gendry Baratheon? Three-Eyed Brandon? Bronn or Podrick or Ser
Brienne? I don’t want to ruin it by venturing to guess, but if I were a
betting
woman… at this point? I’d honestly put money on Bran Stark.
Wait, are you serious right now? I
know. I know. It’s crazy, but hear me out: the novels started out with a
first-person chapter from the one, the only Baby Bran Stark. Sure he’s
some all-knowing, all-seeing, not-really-anything memory entity now, but
this show is insane. This story has always been insane. And if you’ll
recall, Tyrion had that conversation with Bran in the Winterfell library
where he asked to be told “all.” What did they talk about then? Perhaps
everything Bran knew and saw? Tyrion might go for a leader who has
intel like that. Bran is like a one-man Westerosi CIA!
So… how’s it going to end? Oh gosh, if we knew we probably wouldn’t be legally allowed to write these! But if one thing is certain—and Ramsay Bolton’s iconic line makes us certain—it probably won’t be all that happy an ending.
You can’t say Daenerys didn’t warn us that she was going to break the wheel.
We
were never going to be happy with the way this show ended. The very
nature of narrative doesn’t allow it. A series like this one — and its
universe — can only expand for so long, can only broaden its scope and
dig new tunnels under its characters’ psyches until it inevitably needs
to contract, especially if the ending the show is hurtling toward is to
declare one new monarch, one ruler over an entire continent. It has to
go small, whittle things down. Because Game of Thrones
threw some of our ideas about narrative out the highest window of the
Red Keep, we hoped it would somehow be able to bypass the laws of
storytelling physics, to resolve all the loose ends without it feeling
spick and span, to blow up our idea of what television means without
taking too much with it, to let our favorites die but Wait, no, not that one!
With
that said, “The Bells” stands out as massively uneven, brilliant in
moments (Lena Headey takes all the cake), but often abysmally fan
service-y. (See Euron appearing out of the water onto the exact same
slot of beach Jaime is on just so the two can duel over a woman only one
of them loves.) It dragged down not one but two queens, with my
personal GOT lord and savior Cersei dying under
the weight of what she thought might protect her, and Daenerys using
the weight of what protects her to send other people to their deaths.
In
the days to come the battle among viewers will revolve around one big
idea: Daenerys the Mad Queen giving in to her worst impulses and
torching an entire city and its people to the ground. How can they drag a good woman down?
the Twitterverse will wail. Crowds of angry viewers are going to revolt
against the fact that this single woman isn’t keeping their feminist
fantasies alive, that the showrunners would dare do something so complex
as have a woman with rather questionable DNA, a devout belief in her
divine rights, a propensity for crucifixion, a long storied history of
being talked out of vicious acts by her advisers, and a savior complex
the size of Wun Wun actually do the logical thing and go HAM. If you’re
wondering how long this has been building, go back and rewatch Daenerys
burn Mirri Maz Dur in season one, watch her burn Pyat Pree in season
two, watch her burn Astapor in season three, watch her crucify the
Masters in season four, watch her burn the slave owners of Meereen in
season five, Vaes Dothrak in season six, the loot train and the Tarlys
in season seven.
And
after this episode, rewatch how easily she burns Varys alive without a
trial, without a conversation, without remorse. What once looked like
strength has been a trail of bread crumbs leading to narcissism and
madness, instead.
What
matters isn’t whether Daenerys lives up to some 21st-century ideal of a
female conqueress who slays the patriarchy in a feel-good one-two
dragon-claw punch. And good God, who would really want that? It’s just
as flat and uninspired an idea as the emo boy who’s a secret prince.
(Also, repeat after me: This does not mean that Jon Snow becomes king.)
What matters is that Daenerys’s snarly hell-raising is in keeping with
the character we’ve known since she ate a horse heart to satisfy her
warlord husband. Her propensity for blood was always tempered by the
advisers who pleaded with her for mercy, who reminded her of what she
might become if she gave in to the desire for fire and blood. Now
they’re all dead, and King’s Landing, we can safely assume, is no longer
strictly habitable
What’s
unclear is whether Daenerys sees her dragon joyride as a step too far
in the “let it be fear” direction, even though it was also a tactical
blunder the likes of which we haven’t seen (and boy oh boy have we seen
some commanders fuck up on this show cough cough Stannis cough).
The people won’t exactly be lining the streets with celebratory
confetti now. They threw feces at Cersei, dear Dragon Queen — anyone
would have been better liked than the woman who casually blew up the
Sept and the entire religious community just so she didn’t have to
appear in court.
Some of the episode’s best moments capitalized on the helplessness of even Game of Thrones’
toughest commanders, like Jon killing his own soldier to stop a war
crime, screaming uselessly into the wind that his men should stand down.
In between ludicrous, death-defying moments (Arya eluding fire and
ten-ton crumbling parapets at every turn, the Hound taking 17 Mountain
blows to the head and popping back up like a dog-in-a-box), the sense
that we’d wandered into a moral morass kept rearing its head as grandly
as that magical piece of equine machinery on which Arya rides off at
episode’s end. Some of that is due to the attention paid to the screams
and charred skin of the blacksmiths and tavern owners and baker’s boys
of King’s Landing (although these new views of the city were incredibly
disorienting and absolutely no streets looked familiar, which was
jarring). The little girl holding a carved wooden animal — just like
Shireen — was this show’s equivalent of Schindler’s List’s
little girl in the red coat. A complete innocent wrapped up in the
violent ends that follow lords’ and ladies’ violent delights.
The
slippery, changing nature of the battle added to that impact. First, it
was set like a typical medieval meeting in the field, as the most
Teutonic human ever to walk the planet (a.k.a. the head of the Golden
Company, a.k.a. shouldn’t that guy play Prince Philip in The Crown
one season?) came out to meet the Northern Army. Then it turned into
wild street combat, with soldiers slashing their way down twisty alleys.
And once Daenerys “I am not here to be Queen of the Ashes” Stormborn
continued to torch the city after its surrender, it became moral mayhem,
a rather fitting place for a show so indebted to the question of
whether one can be both powerful and merciful.
As
the grieving moral compass, Tyrion had some of his best scenes of the
season: his hand clutching at Varys in sorrow and pain, his back turned
just before Drogon sets Varys alight, his utter bewilderment after the
bells begin to ring and Daenerys just keeps grilling. He’s failed at his
duties as the Hand of the Queen so many times this season that it’s
become de rigueur to bust on his skills. But here Tyrion’s plan went
remarkably well. The Northern Army won easily, and the Lannister Army
surrendered. Which is why his bereft face, fixated on Daenerys as she
soars across the sky, left such a deep impact. In springing Jaime free,
he was essentially offering up his own life for “the thousands of
children” that would die in a dragon siege. To see Dany cruelly and
unnecessarily murder said children in the street made it painfully clear
to Tyrion that not only had he wrongly dimed out Varys, but that he — a
man with no chance to be king — was willing to die for a people whose
own queen would put them to death.
After
Arya’s little dance with the Night King, viewers were nominating her
for everything, especially the role of Cersei’s killer — after all, she
was one of the few remaining names on Arya’s kill list (which, by the
way, is now complete). But instead Arya’s role in “The Bells” ended up
mimicking her disorientation in the first season, when she spent days
alone confusedly wandering the streets of King’s Landing after her
father’s arrest. Back in the city for the first time since then, Arya
retraces her steps, fleeing the Red Keep after she’s warned away by
someone who is willing to die so she doesn’t have to, and then turning
through the alleyways with every face around her unfriendly and
terrifying. It was satisfying and unexpected for Arya, who had slowly
devolved into nothing more than a ruthless assassin, to return to a
place of tender humanity with the opposite of her surefootedness in the
Battle of Winterfell.
I
spent the first three-quarters of the episode wondering why Daenerys
didn’t simply fly over to the highest tower in the Red Keep and roast
Cersei alive. Once she took out the scorpions and turned her eye back
toward the city, the moment seemed right. But for a reason Benioff and
Weiss probably can’t explain, Daenerys simply skirts Cersei and sends
other towers falling.
While I wish Cersei — by far the most dynamic and interesting woman on the show — had been given more to do than moodily stare out a very high window all season,
Lena Headey worked magic with what she was given, teaching a master
class in staying completely still, saying nothing, and giving a
marvelous performance. After all, Cersei didn’t just lose the throne,
she capsized the richest and most powerful family in Westeros and let
the entire city burn. Her descent, then, from the highest tower to the
depths of Maegor’s Holdfast, worked as a fitting metaphor for just how
catastrophically she’s fallen, now left among the bones of long-dead
dragons.
And
while I admittedly hoped for a more eye-bulging ending — like Jaime’s
golden hand crushing her windpipe — the collapse of a castle upon her
head worked pretty damn great, too. (Rather potent revenge for a woman
who blows up buildings.) Was Cersei and Jaime’s love disgusting and
wrong? Hell yes, but honestly, it was also pretty true. Jaime’s arc
toward redemption wasn’t cut short by his return to Cersei’s side, it
was magnified by his refusal to let her die alone, his belief in the
inherent value of her person, even if she’d murdered and screwed and
backstabbed her way through life.
Jaime died the way he hoped to, with the woman he loved in his arms. As Lena Headey explained,
“They came into the world together and now they leave together.” And in
the end, Cersei’s breakdown — “Please don’t let me die. I don’t want to
die. Not like this.” — revealed that underneath all of her ugly lay the
same fear she’d preyed on in everyone around her.
We
want fitting conclusions for all our favorite characters — but nothing
too neat. Every moment now should have resonance — but shouldn’t merely
copy what’s come before. Game of Thrones should
end the same way it did its best work — surprising us. Or perhaps
surprising us about the way it’s surprising us. It’s a high standard to
live up to. Impossible, probably, after a series that helped break open
the idea of what you can do on TV. The most we can hope for is that our
characters get the fates they deserve, whether that’s in the hot flames
of an enraged dragon or the cold steel of the Iron Throne.
O mundo fica a cada dia mais estranho, mas continua redondo. Ou melhor,
no formato de geoide, sólido cuja melhor aproximação é a esfera. A
Terra, enfim, é uma bola. É uma verdade conhecida e descrita pelo menos
desde Eratóstenes, no século III a.C. Fundamentou os Grandes
Descobrimentos, a astronomia de Galileu, Newton, Einstein ou de qualquer
físico que se preze. Dá base a todos os sistemas de navegação, marítima
ou aeronáutica, planetária ou interplanetária; a todas as explicações
do movimento de astros, cometas ou eclipses que tenham um mínimo de
aderência na realidade. Ainda assim, nos últimos anos tem crescido, de
modo inexplicável, a quantidade daqueles que, com base em pseudociência e
teorias da conspiração, se identificam como “terraplanistas”. Acham que
o mundo tem o formato de uma pizza, coberta por um domo com estrelas,
acima da qual o Sol circula como uma espécie de abajur (é um pouco pior
que isso, mas dá para fazer uma ideia).
De todas as fajutices e baboseiras que ganharam vida na internet, de
todos os cursos, filosofias ou picaretagens alternativas com que um ser
humano pode preencher seu cérebro oco nas redes sociais, de todo o
universo conspiratório que alimenta a paranoia on-line — e olha que ele
não é pequeno —, nada se compara ao terraplanismo. O desvario pode ser
conferido no documentário A Terra é plana, disponível na Netflix. Como
ciência, é apenas um filme ruim (embora dê voz a cientistas, as
barbaridades dos terraplanistas não são desmentidas como deveriam). Como
retrato da psicologia que tornou este planeta irrespirável para quem
ainda tem algum apreço pela verdade, é um relato inestimável. Qual a
reação da academia diante de um movimento baseado numa mentira
flagrante, cujo objetivo é lograr incautos (e abalá-la)? A previsível:
desprezo. Enquanto isso, o terraplanismo só faz crescer.
Tal paradoxo caiu no colo do finlandês Petri Launiainen no ano passado,
enquanto ele conferia em casa, em Brasília, as provas de seu livro A
brief history of everything wireless (Uma breve história de tudo sem
fio). Piloto de avião certificado, mergulhador experiente, astrônomo
amador, chefe por dez anos do laboratório da Nokia em Manaus,
especialista em tecnologias sem fio, Launiainen deparou com um vídeo no
YouTube argumentando que determinado pouso de emergência era a prova
definitiva de que a Terra era plana. Era um despropósito. Ficou curioso.
Dali a algumas horas, ainda estava imerso no buraco sem fundo do
terraplanismo. A experiência resultou noutro livro: Flat out wrong (algo
como Planamente errado), um trabalho minucioso de desmistificação das
teorias picaretas do movimento, cuja origem está numa obra do século XIX
chamada Astronomia zetética. Do pôr do sol às estações do ano, dos
navios que somem no horizonte ao trânsito das estrelas, dos eclipses ao
sol da meia-noite, Launiainen explica tudo com paciência e precisão.
Quem nunca aprendeu na escola tem à disposição imagens e evidências
intuitivas — sim, é intuitivo! — de que o mundo é mesmo uma bola (há
outras em flatoutwrong.com).
“O mais surpreendente não é a profusão de gente que acredite no
terraplanismo (afinal, tem de tudo nesta bola). É que o livro de
Launiainen seja um dos raríssimos que se disponham a atacar o movimento”
Nenhum acadêmico decidiu enfrentá-los com serenidade, só com derrisão.
“Entendo por que os acadêmicos não querem dar atenção”, me disse
Launiainen de Barcelona, para onde acaba de se mudar. É gastar tempo e
energia com algo que é, no fundo, “como uma religião”. Não acreditam
valer a pena tentar dissuadir os fiéis. No mundo atual, porém, todo
movimento desse tipo embute um risco político. Basta ver o desprezo
lunático pela ciência que tomou conta de temas como vacinação, mudança
climática, armas de fogo ou mesmo a reforma da Previdência. Os
“zetéticos” podem parecer apenas mais uma dessas seitas cheias de
esquisitões inofensivos. Mas quem garante que em breve não estarão dando
as cartas no meio ambiente, na saúde, nas relações exteriores ou nas
universidades?
FLAT OUT WRONG
Petri Launiainen, Amazon (e-book)
2018 | 124 páginas | US$ 5,20
Para Jamile Borges, recuperar protagonismo de negros é essencial para reinventar a história escrita pelos vencedores
Úrsula Passos
Para a professora Jamile Borges, o 13 de Maio é
resultado de uma historiografia oficial contada a partir da perspectiva
dos vencedores, a oligarquia e a classe média brancas, que preferem
creditar à princesa Isabel o resultado pela abolição, enquanto o 20 de
Novembro, Dia da Consciência Negra, é uma conquista das populações
ex-escravizadas, dos libertos.
No Brasil, segundo ela, que estudou o comportamento de frequentadores
de museus dedicados à diáspora negra no país e nos Estados Unidos, ao
lidar com a memória da escravidão há uma tendência a se fazer a
musealização da dor, em vez de evocar a resistência.
Mas isso está mudando, e o papel de intelectuais, trabalhadores e
cientistas negros e negras está sendo recuperado. Apostar nisso, para
ela, "é pensar em recuperar a história do Brasil muito mais a partir do
nosso protagonismo do que da nossa eterna condição de jugo, de vítima do
colonialismo
Borges é especialista em memória da afrodiáspora, a imigração forçada
de negros do continente africano, e coordena o Museu Afro-Digital da
Memória Africana e Afro-Brasileira, composto de documentos relacionados à
presença africana no Brasil.
O acervo digital foi crescendo e, com o apoio de outros, hoje é uma
rede de museus afrodigitais em parceria com três universidades públicas,
que colabora com instituições de países como Moçambique, Guiné Bissau,
Cabo Verde e Angola, tendo ajudado na digitalização e conservação de
seus acervos.
À Folha Borges fala sobre o racismo, que nunca vai acabar, a importância da autodeclaração e o papel de museus na memória coletiva.
No seu doutorado, a senhora estudou museus digitais da história negra no Brasil e em Chicago. Como é a memória nos dois casos?
Os usuários do museu americano sobre afrodiáspora evocavam uma memória
de luta, de resistência; já os usuários brasileiros desses museus evocam
a memória da dor. São duas construções muito diferentes. No Brasil há
uma tendência a se fazer aquilo que eu chamo de musealização da dor, a
gente patrimonializou a dor ao invés de patrimonializar a luta. Por quê? Nossas universidades ainda são
profundamente eurocêntricas e coloniais (na Bahia, por exemplo, a maior
parte dos museus é ligada a universidades), e os intelectuais que
gestaram esses espaços ainda estavam comprometidos com uma mentalidade
colonialista, com a ideia de que o museu não tinha compromisso com a
resistência. O papel do museu, para essas pessoas, não era político.
Isso vem mudando, mas nossas instituições de memória ainda têm um
comprometimento maior com o retrato do passado do que em construir
resistências, em fazer dos museus espaços de fricção, de disputa, em
lugar de ser espaço de consenso sobre o passado atávico colonial.
O que pode ajudar nesse processo? Não temos um
projeto nacional de política patrimonial, mas, de alguma maneira, as
pessoas estão se apropriando das ferramentas de memória. As tecnologias
digitais trouxeram a possibilidade de que a fabricação da memória não
esteja mais na mão de uma elite. Qualquer pessoa pode produzir sentidos
sobre as memórias e produzir seus artefatos museais. É a hora de
baixarmos o tom desse discurso elitista que nosso pensamento museal
ainda tem e nos aproximarmos das pessoas e entendermos como elas lidam
com suas histórias e como podemos aproximá-las da história coletiva.
O momento que vivemos é fruto dessa dificuldade dos gestores. Quando
uma política mais progressista tomou conta do país, nos afastamos das
pessoas. Ofertamos políticas afirmativas e sociais, mas não dialogamos e
não fomos capazes de fabricar sentidos para dizer: "O que você espera
que aconteça daqui para frente?" Achamos que poderíamos ser porta-vozes
das pessoas, foi um grande equívoco.
O Centro de Estudos Afro-Orientais da UFBA foi o primeiro da
América Latina dedicado ao assunto. Como está o cenário dos estudos da
afrodiáspora no Brasil, 60 anos após a sua criação? Tem
melhorado desde a criação, em 2003, da Lei 10.639 [que torna obrigatório
o ensino de história e cultura afro-brasileira nas escolas]. Essa lei e
a de cotas impactaram as universidades e praticamente todas as públicas
têm um núcleo de estudos afro-brasileiros.
Mas, paradoxalmente, ainda há, institucionalmente, uma reação ao
acesso e permanência de docentes negros. No departamento de educação da
UFBA, onde dou aula, temos 50 professores, só 3 autodeclarados negros.
[Levantamento de 2018 mostra que 2% dos professores da universidade são
negros; na USP, 2,2%]
O museu e o centro sofreram com o contingenciamento imposto pelo Ministério da Educação?
Grande parte de nosso trabalho depende da existência de bolsistas, que
tiveram suas bolsas cortadas. Ao mesmo tempo, o contingenciamento impôs
restrições à aquisição de equipamentos e manutenção na infraestrutura do
projeto. Também nosso programa de pós-graduação em estudos étnicos e
africanos sofreu impacto com a redução da verba de um fundo chamado
Proap (Programa de Apoio à Pós-Graduação), que impactará nas pesquisas
de mestrado e doutorado já em curso, impedindo deslocamentos,
participação em eventos e produção do conhecimento. Uma lástima.
Neste ano, no Carnaval do Rio, a comissão de frente da
Mangueira retirou os retratos de brancos tidos como heróis para contar a
história de outros heróis. O questionamento sobre a história da
abolição e a revisão do papel de figuras como princesa Isabel está
crescendo? É um movimento que se origina do crescimento do
feminismo negro nas universidades e vai resultar na onda feminista
negra. O feminismo negro hoje talvez seja o principal campo de forças no
qual podemos nos organizar e ganhar espaço na luta. Em que pese o
predomínio do patriarcado branco, há cada vez mais mulheres escrevendo e
publicando. A interiorização das universidades teve grande impacto
nisso. O feminismo negro tende a crescer.
E qual a diferença em celebrar o 13 de Maio e o 20 de Novembro?
O 13 de Maio é resultado de uma historiografia oficial que contou a
história a partir de uma perspectiva, a dos vencedores, a de uma
oligarquia e uma classe média branca que preferem creditar à princesa
Isabel o resultado pela abolição e pela libertação das populações
escravizadas. O 20 de Novembro [data da morte de Zumbi, líder do
quilombo dos Palmares] é uma conquista das populações ex-escravizadas,
uma conquista histórica dos movimentos negros. A ideia de pensar uma
consciência negra é o entendimento de um referencial histórico,
intelectual e político.
Frantz Fanon, no livro "Pele Negra, Máscaras Brancas", fala de uma
consciência dupla; o entendimento de que o negro era escravizado, mas ao
mesmo tempo a necessidade de sobrevivência impelia populações negras a
intercursos ou certos jogos que tinham que ser feitos com os senhores
coloniais. A necessidade de sobrevivência gerava o conflito dessa dupla
consciência. Entender-se negro e escravo, mas, ao mesmo tempo, em certas
circunstâncias, adotar o jogo do mestiço, do mulato, da crioulização.
A consciência negra é tomar consciência de quem nós somos, de nossa
história, de nosso espaço, do que significou a travessia transatlântica e
o impacto dela.
Ato do movimento negro em 1988, na Bahia
- Lázaro Roberto/Zumvi Arquivo Fotográfico
Esse processo colabora para uma passagem da memória da dor para a memória da luta?
Sem dúvida. Os recentes trabalhos de pesquisa que tenho acompanhado
estão preocupados em recuperar o protagonismo dessas figuras. Apostar em
projetos que recuperem o papel de intelectuais, trabalhadores e
cientistas negros e negras é recuperar a história do Brasil muito mais a
partir do nosso protagonismo do que da nossa eterna condição de jugo,
de vítima do colonialismo.
Nós de fato passamos por um processo que deixou marcas profundas, a
chamada chaga colonial, mas há uma história que tem sido reescrita por
essas jovens mãos que estão buscando outras histórias de luta, em lugar
de insistir na patrimonialização da dor.
Quão eurocêntricos ainda somos? Muito. O fato de
termos ainda essa mentalidade colonial e atrasada se revela, por
exemplo, no ódio que se produziu nas redes sociais num momento em que
parcelas das classes C e D ascenderam e começaram a entrar em espaços
sacros da classe média branca. Vivemos o retorno do recalcado, o ódio, o
ressentimento de uma elite que encontrou espaço para dizer que quer,
deseja e anseia pela volta de uma sociedade assimétrica, desigual e
escravocrata.
Como mexer nessa mentalidade racista? A primeira
medida já tomamos: falar disso. As políticas de ação afirmativa tiveram
um papel importante ao assumir a ideia da autodeclaração. Tivemos
problemas de fraude, mas, pela primeira vez, fomos obrigados a dizer
quem somos de fato. Um país que se estruturou a partir do mito da
democracia racial não queria se olhar no espelho.
O racismo não acaba com a abolição da escravidão, ganha uma nova
roupagem. Ainda hoje jovens profissionais têm sido recusados em empregos
quando se descobre que são negros. Isso não vai se resolver, porque
isso não é um fenômeno que tem uma temporalidade, que possa se acabar em
algum momento como por mágica. E, se não resolvemos o problema, temos
que criar estratégias de enfrentamento, e elas são múltiplas, desde a
criação de coletivos à de mecanismos para denúncia; o estatuto da
igualdade racial; a possibilidade de criminalizar a injúria racial. Se
nós queremos viver sob o princípio da legalidade, é nele que temos que
encontrar os mecanismos de enfrentamento.
A jornalista viajou a convite do Festival Transatlântico de Fotografia
raio-x
Jamile Borges, 49
Pesquisadora e professora do Centro de Estudos Afro-Orientais da Universidade Fed
pologia
e mestre em educação. Criou e coordena o Museu Afro-Digital da Memória
Africana e Afro-Brasileira, museu digital em parceria com a Biblioteca
Nacional, UERJ (Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro), UFPE (federal
de Pernambuco) e UFMA (do Maranhão). O acervo reúne fotografias, textos
e arquivos de áudio relacionados à presença africana no Brasil
O MBLO (Movimento Brasil Livre do Outro) é o movimento social mais
antigo da história do país. Depois de completar cinco séculos de
existência, tendo sobrevivido a adversários como a abolição, a
democracia e as liberdades civis, tomou anabolizante e voltou a latir de
raiva e medo. Seu maior militante do século XXI ganhou a Presidência da
República. “Aconteceu”, diz ele. O grosso dessa militância está nas
ruas, no trabalho, até dentro de casa. Constrói muros reais e
metafóricos no espaço público, invade terra indígena, bota fogo em
barraco para liberar o empreendimento, protege-se com arma de fogo e
carro blindado.
Esse movimento social nunca foi de muitas luzes. Um ano atrás, cometeu
mais um de seus erros históricos e metralhou Marielle Franco e Anderson
Gomes. Sua ala criminal-miliciana resolveu fazer o serviço sujo e assim
transformou a vereadora carioca no mais meteórico símbolo nacional e
global de dignidade política. O passo seguinte foi difamá-la, tal como
fez a desembargadora carioca que afirmou ser Marielle “engajada com
bandidos”, ou equiparar o atentado a um crime comum numa cidade violenta
em que todos podem morrer. Jair Bolsonaro, pré-candidato, achou melhor
não se manifestar, porque sua opinião “seria polêmica demais”. Em
comício, dois candidatos a deputado quebravam a placa de homenagem a
Marielle na companhia do candidato Wilson Witzel, enquanto um gritava
“Nós vamos varrer esses vagabundos”. Na semana passada, um grupo de
deputados tentou inviabilizar uma homenagem a Marielle no Congresso por
meio de uma caixa de som que tocava em alto volume latidos de cachorro.
No Índice de Repugnância Bolsonara (IRB), que permite dar expressão
quantitativa ao código de ética da nova era, essas reações estão na
dianteira. Esse código, só para lembrar, não é para os fracos: recomenda
isentar mulher feia de estupro, tratar suspeito com tortura e filho
afeminado com porrada. São as conhecidas palavras do líder, em sua
militância contra a “geração de maricas”
No curto período como vereadora, Marielle apresentou 16 projetos de lei,
dos quais sete foram aprovados (cinco depois de sua morte). Entre os
temas, a regulação do trabalho de mototaxistas, a fiscalização de
contratos da prefeitura, a criação de creches noturnas, o combate à
violência contra a mulher. Denunciou esquemas de corrupção na cidade,
esteve ao lado de familiares de policiais mortos em serviço e exigiu que
os crimes fossem investigados. Propostas radicais não por serem de
esquerda ou de direita, mas talvez por incomodarem um estado dominado
pelo crime organizado. As hipóteses que explicam o atentado permanecem
implausíveis e a continuidade da investigação, depois das primeiras
prisões, é um desafio institucional.
Homenagens públicas espalham-se pelo mundo. Marielle virou nome de rua
na Alemanha, estação de metrô em Buenos Aires e está próxima de virar
nome de rua em Florença e de praça em Paris. Foi tema de congresso e de
curso da filósofa Angela Davis em Princeton. A Universidade Johns
Hopkins criou a “Marielle Franco Fund” para conceder bolsas de estudo.
No Brasil, inspirou geração de mulheres a disputar eleições, foi mote de
samba-enredo da escola campeã do Carnaval carioca e é celebrada nos
muros e manifestações pelo país.
“A placa com seu nome tornou-se símbolo de um compromisso fundamental de decência política”
Marielle continuará a representar, com outras figuras históricas, a
ameaça de um Brasil melhor. Quer dizer: a ameaça de um país que
distribui liberdade igualmente; que considera qualquer tipo de servidão
um problema de interesse público e a autonomia econômica de cada
indivíduo uma prioridade; onde favela e presídio conseguem ser vistos;
onde sala de aula não é lugar do inimigo, mas de emancipação; onde
policial, professor e médico são valorizados e respeitados; onde há
espaço para mulheres, negros e orientações sexuais que a natureza
permitiu e o deus dos outros proibiu; onde a família “de bem” é tão
diversa e plural quanto quiser. Uma revolução liberal que Paulo Guedes
desconhece e o astrólogo da Virgínia abomina. Essa ameaça o presidente
não tolera. Não orna o seu mundo em preto e branco. Seu sonho, como
disse em Washington, é libertar o Brasil que ele vê em seu espelho dos
outros Brasis que ele tem medo de experimentar. Essa “libertação”, não
se engane, é liberticida. Está nos estatutos do MBLO.
Ilona Szabó e Melina Risso Como explicar que militares bem treinados em uma patrulha rotineira em área militar, submetidos a uma rígida cadeia de comando e controle, cometam um erro brutal e atirem 80 vezes por trás de um carro de uma família que não apresenta nenhuma ameaça ou agressão? Ficamos perplexas e horrorizadas com a notícia. Por que e como isso aconteceu? Quem tomou a decisão de atirar e de quebrar todas as regras de engajamento e abordagem que deveriam ser claras para esses recrutas? Sim, as regras de abordagem e uso da força são claras por aqui e mundo afora: na dúvida, não atire contra civis. Precisamos exigir que as investigações sejam minuciosas e transparentes. As lições desse trágico episódio precisam ser usadas para que isso nunca mais se repita.
Não temos informações sobre as motivações da ação que levou ao assassinato do músico Evaldo e que feriu outras duas pessoas. Só sabemos, até o momento, que os militares “confundiram” seu carro com o de bandidos. Essa explicação não basta. Sem agressão ou ameaça, mesmo que bandidos fossem, nem militares nem policiais deveriam atirar.
Algumas hipóteses precisam ser apuradas: os militares que faziam o patrulhamento simplesmente resolveram transgredir as regras e atirar? Receberam ordens superiores de que o procedimento padrão havia mudado? Se sim, quem deu a ordem, com que justificativa e amparado em que marco legal? Qualquer uma dessas alternativas é extremamente grave.
Vivemos um momento paradoxal de nossa história em que governantes foram eleitos com bandeiras e propostas que incentivam o uso excessivo da força por agentes da lei e até mesmo por cidadãos. Discurso e práticas totalmente contrários à Constituição e aos valores democráticos que dizem subscrever. E a consequência desse tipo de postura não é apenas simbólica. É razoável assumir que a retórica agressiva pode influenciar ações violentas. Políticos têm responsabilidade pela ação truculenta das tropas nas ruas. Isso precisa ficar claro para todo mundo. Não adianta incitar e depois dizer que quem decide é o policial ou o soldado. É injusto, negligente e omisso. Os que estão na ponta são incentivados a descumprir a lei e a colocar sua profissão e vida em risco.
O caso do músico Evaldo não foi o primeiro em que houve abuso de regras de conduta e sinais de execução nesses cem dias dos novos governos. Há os casos do Fallet, no Rio de Janeiro, onde 15 pessoas foram mortas possivelmente depois de rendidas, e o caso de Guararema, no estado de São Paulo, onde 11 suspeitos de um assalto a banco foram mortos pela polícia. Esses casos precisam ser investigados e ter consequências tanto para os envolvidos diretamente no fato como na cadeia de comando e controle. A lei e os limites estabelecidos por ela devem ser os parâmetros para a atuação das forças de segurança, e isso vale para todos os cidadãos.
Somos um dos países onde os policiais mais morrem, em especial fora de serviço. Mas também é aqui no Brasil onde os índices de violência policial são altíssimos. E a maioria absoluta das mortes ocasionadas por policiais e militares não chega a ser investigada ou julgada. Os ministérios públicos estaduais precisam assumir sua tarefa constitucional de fiscalizar o trabalho da polícia e de denunciar os autores de execuções. A impunidade reina nos crimes de homicídio no Brasil, e o Estado precisa dar o exemplo e começar a coibir as ilegalidades que estão sob seu controle.
Forças de segurança legítimas são a base para governos legítimos. E para que a sociedade possa confiar na polícia e respeitá-la, tão necessária em uma democracia, ela precisa ser exemplar e cumprir a lei. E vocês, governantes, não se iludam, pois também pagarão a conta do bangue-bangue, das injustiças e ilegalidades. A sociedade está com medo. Alguns podem até apoiá-los e achar que polícias podem descumprir a lei seguindo determinações e ordens dos superiores. Mas a maioria não concorda e começa a despertar. Não há atalhos para a segurança pública. Há soluções e já as conhecemos. A prevenção, a inteligência e a repressão qualificada serão sempre mais eficazes do que a força bruta. Ainda há tempo de aprenderem essas lições.
Dany really should have read those Westerosi history books Ser Jorah gave her on her wedding day.
What comes after a long night? A far more metaphorical battle—one about ruling and winning and destiny and whatnot. And as Game of Thrones
begins to wrap up, with the Night King out of the way, factions are
splintering off and people are wandering towards the endgame.
And
by the looks of next week’s episode, Cersei and Dany are going to
battle for the title of Maddest Queen, because the future of tyranny is
female, apparently. Until then, these are the questions that are burning
a hole in our brains after “The Last of the Starks,” to ponder as we
wait for the penultimate chapter in the song of ice and fire.
Wait, weren’t Edd and Lyanna Mormont turned into the undead army? Why are they on the funeral pyre? Yes, they were turned into wights at the tail end of “The Long Night,”
you very astute viewer! And while the White Walkers (a.k.a. Craster’s
boys) and the Night King exploded into icy shards of undone magic, the
wights—a.k.a. the undead zombies—only fell in place, in piles. So it
tracks that their bodies were intact, but it is
wild that the survivors were able to find their bodies among all the
undead masses and place them on the northmen/Dothraki funeral pyres.
Which…
Are we really not going to address the Dothraki massacre? We don’t need to get into the atrocious battle strategy
this team of nincompoops came up with last week, but it does feel
pretty wild that under Daenerys’ command, nearly an entire race of
people—more or less, since everyone in Vaes Dothrak either died or
pledged themselves to her cause—sacrificed themselves in a matter of
moments and nobody seems to care. Sure, there was a throwaway line in
this week’s episode about there being a few “remaining Dothraki,” but
how is their near-extinction not a bigger deal to Dany, or anyone else
for that matter?
Where are Arya and The Hound going? If
I were a betting woman, I would put every penny I own on these two
heading to King’s Landing. After all, they’ve still got people they need
and want to kill. For Clegane, it’s his brother, the undead Mountain.
For Arya? Uh, Cersei and her green eyes (of “Melisandre’s prophecy”
fame), duh! It wouldn’t make sense for them to head literally anywhere
else. Don’t stop believin’, Cleganebowl obsessors!
What about everyone else, like Gilly and Sam and Jaime and Tormund? Great
question! Knowing Sam, he’s likely on his way back to Horn Hill to
raise Gilly and his child—and Little Sam—in the relative peace of his
ancestral/family home. Especially now that he’s the eldest remaining
heir, thanks to Dany. But the episode never explicitly stated it, so
your guess is as good as ours. As for Tormund and Jaime? They’re heading
back to where they belong, as well: North of the Wall and King’s
Landing, respectively.
Will we ever see Tormund again? We refuse to believe this is the last we see of our Giantsbae!
Are they seriously going to do Ghost like that? The Goodest of All the Good Boys has managed to hang around longer than any of his direwolf siblings,
and though he may be a bit worse for wear (his poor ear!), the series
sending Ghost north is one of the cruelest things we’ve ever seen. How
are you going to ghost on Ghost, Jon Snow? You ride a dragon a few times
and suddenly you don’t care about your life-saving wolf? Ghost needs to be with Jon Snow. He
survived the war against the dead! You’re not even going to let him
stay and protect Winterfell? I don’t care if it costs a millions dollars
an episode to render Ghost, you do not treat a good boy in this way, Game of Thrones!
How are dragons this easy to kill? Considering
that Aegon the Conqueror terrorized the Seven Kingdoms into submission
with his dragons, it feels pretty incongruous that two of Dany’s three
dragons have died so easily. Is it just because she doesn’t have a good
handle on them, or has history overstated their ability to control the
loyalty of the Realm? Whatever you do, don’t say these dragon-killing
inventions are new, because they’re not. (See the next question for that
answer.)
Why didn’t Dany read those Westerosi history books Ser Jorah gave her on her wedding day? Because
if she did, she would know that longbows and scorpions have been used,
quite effectively, against dragons in Westeros since “The Battle at Rook’s Rest” in the original Dance of the Dragons.
(Which, we should probably mention, was fought between two warring
Targaryen factions, embodied by the Blacks and the Greens… gee, those
colors sound familiar, don’t they?) If Dany had read any of the
materials Jorah had given her, a lot of the goings-on happening
currently—like the dragon deaths and her beef with Jon Snow—could’ve
probably been avoided.
And why hasn’t anyone made any dragon armor yet? After the Ice Dragon you’d think Dany would have made that priority number one. You gotta protect your children, momma!
When did everyone get so dumb? Sorry, I may be projecting slightly
here, but seriously: What happened to those Tyrion Lannister smarts of
earlier seasons? Is he just tired, or that convinced of Dany’s best
intentions, even after all the men she’s lit on fire? Sansa—per usual
these days—was right: the battle strategies of the youngest Lannister
have not been as ideal or as brilliant in a minute. Listen, Tyrion: We
know you think you’re about to be an uncle, but that should not be
clouding your vision about who your sister really is this much. Not at
this point in the game.
Oh, and seriously though: is Cersei actually pregnant? There’s absolutely no way, right? Homegirl is messing with all of them, and if there is a baby in there, it’s probably some sort of weird and creepy Qyburn creation.
Why did Missandei have to die over Tyrion? Ahh
yes, the question spreading like wildfire across the internet: Why did
the only woman of color with a speaking role on this show have to die?
Cersei has been a ruthless leader for years, so her killing Missandei to
fuel Dany’s Mad Queen fire makes sense to a degree, but it would have
been much more effective if Cersei had, instead, loosed a few arrows on
the brother she’s dreamed of killing since the day he was born, right?
That would have really set Dany off without a leash.
Why didn’t Dany just kill Jon Snow? Seriously,
if she was so upset about the Jon “Aegon Targaryen” Snow revelation,
she could have handled this shit in such a simple, easy-to-explain-away
manner: Just kill him off in the Battle of Winterfell and blame a member
of the army of the dead. Poof! No more claim issues, no more Mad Dany.
It’s like she’s never played a game of thrones before.
Et tu, Varys?! Man,
we’re all for your loyalty to The Realm above all else, but we truly
expected more than “cocks are important” from the eunuch who’s managed
to help shadow-rule without one. Sigh.
