The Atlantic proves that the New York Times doesn't have a monopoly on fantasy bashing

Daenerys Targaryen (Emilia Clarke) bares all on Game of Thrones. (That "all" is not included here, as a
consideration for anyone reading this at work or in front of small children.)

Apparently Ginia Bellafante and Neil Genzlinger at the New York Times aren't the only writers who let their anti-fantasy bias inform their opinions of Game of Thrones. Ta-Nehesi Coates at The Atlantic took on the issue of gratuitous nudity on the series, which in and of itself can be a very productive discussion. But instead of actually looking at the problem critically and coming up with a reasonably explanation, he fell back on the frustratingly prevalent explanation that fantasy is only liked by nerdy male virgins, and nerdy male virgins like to look at naked chicks:

If there's one thing I've enjoyed about exploring French film it's that the film-makers don't always come off as bunch of nerds compensating for something that did--or rather didn't--happen in high school. There's a strain of thought here (and maybe abroad) which holds that violating manners is--in and of itself--an aesthetic good, that art which makes your grandmother uncomfortable has, for only that reason, advanced society. (You see the same strain of thought in "ironic racism.") I'd rather art that considers manners largely irrelevant.

First of all, comparing Game of Thrones to the French New Wave is somewhat facetious, as they are entirely different works that are working towards divergent ends (and I say this as a fan of both French film and Game of Thrones). And saying that Francois Truffaut wasn't "compensating for something that did - or rather didn't - happen in high school"? Has Coates ever actually watched Jules et Jim? Because - and I say this again as a fan of Truffaut - the character of Katherine, like so many of the director's women, is clearly his attempt to deal with romantic rejection by resigning himself to the fact that women are, like, complicated and confusing, man.

A brief history of the New York Times' hatred of Game of Thrones

Daenerys' dragons might have something to say to the New York Times.

After Ginia Bellafante's incredibly sexist (not to mention poorly written) original review of Game of Thrones sparked backlash and controversy from the many women who resented being told that they were supposed to like Sex and the City and dislike Tolkien, you would think that maybe the New York Times would have taken a moment to rethink its editorial stance on the show. At the very least, you might think that the Old Gray Lady would allow a critic who doesn't have such an obvious dislike of fantasy to review the show.

You would, sadly, be wrong.

Bellafante, who wrote the paper's official review of HBO's fantasy epic (and who has replaced The New Yorker's Nancy Franklin at the top of my list of most-hated TV critics), somewhat infamously said that Game of Thrones was "boy fiction," and implied that, weirdly enough, instances of incestuous sex and violent rape had been added to the series to appeal to women, because apparently we as a gender are into that sort of thing. More than that, however, Bellafante refers to the show's setting as "the universe of dwarfs, armor, wenches, braids, loincloth," a remark that is just plain wrong (There are not "dwarfs" in the sense of Tolkien's separate race, since Tyrion Lannister is a dwarf in the scientific sense of the words, and I wasn't aware that braids were reserved for unreal worlds) and that demonstrates a deep-rooted dismissal of and disdain for fantasy as a lesser genre.

Cliffhangers aren't cowardice (but catharsis can be)

James Gandolfini, Edie Falco and Robert Iler in the series finale of HBO's The Sopranos.

A few days ago, historian Andrew Roberts wrote an absolutely confounding piece for the Daily Beast calling for an end to unresolved movie endings. (The piece can be found here, but be warned; there are spoilers for The Grey, Rampart, Footnote and The Italian Job, among others). Roberts begins his article by calling unresolved endings "a curious malaise born of cultural decadence," and ends it by accusing those cavalier, amoral directors who film movies with cliffhanger endings of "sheer directorial moral cowardice" in their apparent quest to deny the good people of the moviegoing public "the catharsis they've paid their $13 to experience."

First of all, who the fuck is charging $13 for movie tickets?! I thought my local theater was gouging me with $11 tickets, but apparently it could actually be worse if I, like Roberts, lived in London. It's enough to make me want to move back to Utah, where ticket prices are hanging out around $8.50 (which, of course, I thought was totally unreasonable when I lived there. Times change.)

More importantly, however, Roberts' claim that directors who choose to end their films without resolving the plot are moral cowards is wrong-headed. He claims that endings that are unresolved are "shortchanging the moviegoing public, which has the perfect right to see good behavior rewarded and bad behavior punished." For good measure, he adds that "all the great filmmakers of the past" understood and respected this supposed audience "right" to a happy ending.

Putin's hold on the media slips, but for how long?

Photo courtesy of the Moscow Times.

The New York Times ran a fascinating piece today about how TV news shows in Russia - which are almost entirely state-controlled - are being forced to acknowledge the changing political situation.

A concentrated dose of Russian television — still where 70 percent of Russians get their news — shows that the ferment is too big to ignore: The Kremlin-loyal networks that at first airbrushed out the protest movement are including it in their newscasts.

Now, brisk updates on voter fraud, anti-Putin rallies and opposition candidates share a news hour with long, choreographed tableaus that showcase Mr. Putin as prime minister, hard at work inspecting factories, raising pensions, scolding lazy bureaucrats, and doing what it takes to preserve stability and spread prosperity. He has taken to publishing long mission statements for Russia’s future; each one is framed on the news like a tablet from Moses.

For viewers the effect is bipolar: a little bit NPR, a little bit North Korea.

(via the New York Times)

The Times piece illustrates a fascinating dynamic at play in recent resistance to Putin. Because of the rise of digital connection - the article notes that "Bloggers and political Web sites not only contradict government-tailored newscasts, they also offer an alternate, unscripted reality - live, via cellphone camera and Skype" - the Putin administration can no longer rely on TV news to promote their agenda while ignoring all others. In the same way that the recent election fraud was immediately brought to the attention of the world, anti-Putin sentiment can't be glossed over by the news programs unless they want to lose all credibility with the Russian people.

Another thing I liked about this article was that is acknowledged Putin's continued dominance in Russia. Many media outlets have implicitly (or explicitly) compared the current protests to the Arab Spring, while failing to report on the very high percentage of Russians who support Putin. Having spent time in Russia, I can assure you that Putin's popularity isn't driven purely by his autocratic tendencies, but by actual voter approval. Regular Russian people love Putin, and they have some fairly compelling reasons to do so that I won't go into here. This isn't to condone the man's authoritarian tactics, but merely to offer some perspective. As the Times put it:

Many Russian journalists and media stars have leapt at the chance offered by the government’s tactical shift. Yet few reporters predict that the freedom will survive beyond the elections, since nobody expects Mr. Putin to lose.

“The institution itself hasn’t changed,” said Leonid Parfyonov, a well-known journalist and producer who has attacked the government’s control of the media. “Everyone sees that it will last only till March 4.”

 Vladimir Putin is many things, but stupid is definitely not one of them. He'll probably adapt to the new media environment and keep himself in power. That's going to be harder, however, now that he knows someone is watching.