Mythology: Game of Thrones and The Killing
By Martin Felipe
June 2, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Thrones in particular is one I should dig. It has the rabid following of which I usually am a part. The thing has a Lord of the Rings like fan base, obsessed with the world and all of the details therein. I certainly am a fan of Middle Earth, yet this Westeros bores me. Of course, I read Rings, so I was familiar with Tolkien’s worlds before Jackson’s acclaimed films came along. But that really should make no difference. The show should exist on its own merits and not need the novels to back it up.
See, the thing is about HBO programming, they do have a more novelistic approach than most other television, and by this, I don’t mean serialized arcs. They tend to handle exposition far differently than most other television. This is gonna get a little academic, fair warning.
HBO’s signature shows, The Sopranos, The Wire, Deadwood, and so on dole out exposition very slowly. They will often introduce characters or big moments en media res, or right in the thick of things, often with little explanation as to who many of the characters are, what they want, or how they relate to the characters we all know and love. Then, as the narrative progresses, we begin to understand the situation and its place in the overall scheme.
This works fine while reading, because the reader can pause to regain their bearings. In visual storytelling, the narrative moves forward at its own pace and withheld exposition risks leaving the viewer behind. As a result, most television lays out its exposition in a more straightforward fashion. There’s nothing wrong with this simpler approach, it just has the potential to be a bit dull and rote. En media res is more exciting, but more challenging for the viewer to acclimate. This is one of the reasons that HBO’s programming is so novelistic and gets such praise for not dumbing itself down to audiences.
When dealing with a familiar world like that of The Wire or The Sopranos, there is a built in life vest for viewers. Yes, this new situation might have thrown me off guard, but I understand the world of organized crime enough that I can stay afloat until I get the hang of it. When dealing with a fictional world like Westeros, such an approach lacks the life vest. It’s not that the broad strokes aren’t clear, it’s that the details which the fans of the novels so enjoy get lost to the virgin viewer. The downside to this is that by the time things start to clarify, by about episode five or six by all accounts (I wouldn‘t know, I could only endure the first four), newbie viewers have likely gotten bored.
Where Jackson’s Rings goes right is that he’s able to strike a balance between the rich details of the mythology for the fans, and a fairly accessible entry point for the uninitiated. Look, I’m not suggesting that HBO should dumb down the show by any means, I’m just saying that, as someone who hasn’t read the books, there’s little of interest (other than the nudity, I’ll grant them the nudity) to hold my attention until all of the myriad of details become clear.
AMC’s The Killing, on the other hand, is just as novelistic in its serialized approach, but takes on a more traditional subject matter - to its detriment. If Game of Thrones is too different, The Killing is too the same.
Of course, comparing The Killing to Twin Peaks as pretty much everyone has is not really the issue. Few are the shows that don’t compare to another work, so this is really neither here nor there, except that The Killing compares so unfavorably to its David Lynch counterpart.
There are certainly worse shows to inspire you. In fact, I credit Twin Peaks as being one of the first shows to launch the serialized, novelistic approach to television that has spawned our current golden age. Both shows are protracted whodunits, both shows take place in the Pacific Northwest, both shows rely on interesting character work to keep us busy as they stall out the killer reveal for as long as possible. Where I think The Killing goes wrong is that it’s just not distinctive enough.
Twin Peaks, as a mystery, was certainly nothing new to television of the early '90s. What set Peaks apart is that it wasn’t a prime-time soap in the vein of the '80s Dallas, Dynasty or Knott’s Landing. No, it was a reaction to those shows. To be a little more blunt, it was a satire of them. In addition, Peaks has its quirky David Lynch type sensibility and his trademark exploration of the seedy underbelly of small town America.
To contrast, there is little self aware comic treatment of the subject matter in The Killing. Its straightforward earnestness seems a trite throwback to the pre-ironic era just prior to Lynch’s television landmark. The characters are often interesting, though not as striking and wacky as Lynch’s. But the worst offense of The Killing, is that, despite solid work both on screen and behind the camera, it never seems to rise above solid. Certainly solid is better than much of the typical good-enough-to-get-by efficiency typical of the pre-Peaks television landscape, the lowbrow nonsense that earned TV its vast wasteland reputation. But with so many artists and technicians rising above solid, creating enduring works of art, a show like The Killing will neither embarrass nor stand out. It’ll just shuffle along, doing its thing, and remain AMC’s big mediocrity in the wake of some pretty impressive artistic triumphs.
And thematically Peaks trumps Killing as well. Suburban seedy underbelly exploration may be nothing new to Lynch, but it was a weighty and resonant theme for television in 1990. The Killing seems to be exploring the seedy underbelly of Seattle. Not only is big city deconstruction nothing new for television (again, see The Wire and its treatment of Baltimore) but even Seattle is pretty well-trod television turf. And the main ideas seem to be that it’s rainy and that politics are corrupt are certainly nothing earth-shattering. For that matter, explorations of big city underbellies almost always expose that the politicians of said big city are corrupt.
Atmospherically, the rain is a nice touch, except that rainy whodunits have again been done to death. The gritty, urban landscape is almost cliché serial killer territory after Silence of the Lambs and Se7en. It’s like every aspect of The Killing compares unfavorably to some work that came before. So, again, while a solid undertaking, The Killing doesn’t elevate itself above either its predecessors or its contemporaries to make itself worthy of standing apart as an offering worth following. Certainly not in an era where narrowing down one’s television options almost requires knocking off some acclaimed programming from one’s rotation. And if I must eliminate an acclaimed show, I think I’ve made my choice.
So there you go. A couple of shows that are all abuzz amongst lovers of top quality television that I still don’t like. I did discover one thing while writing this column and that’s just how awesome Twin Peaks really is. I think I might have to take that one on in a column soon.