Recently I’ve noticed a few of my
friends posting links to articles written by Matt Walsh with their own comments
applauding what he has to say. Quite a few of them have gone so far as to say
that he is able to write exactly what they think but are unable to put into
words themselves. Naturally, I’m curious about the ideas that my friends are
supporting, so I’ve taken to reading these articles whenever they appear.
Before I delve into any
critiquing, however, I just want to say that Matt Walsh is a glorified hipster
writer that the Blaze is using to draw millenials into the Christian Right’s
grasp. While I have no doubt that he is an intelligent individual, his writing
is patronizing to the extreme. He rarely considers what the flip side of his
argument may be, and when he does, he either highlights the fanatical views of
a minority of liberals or just completely misses the point of the argument of
what the majority tends to believe. This has been consistent with each article
I’ve read, not just the three I’ve chosen to highlight.
To begin, I’m going to hash out
his Game of Thrones article. Walsh starts out by saying that since Game of
Thrones was first aired, Christians have asked him whether he feels that the
show is appropriate for Christians to watch. First of all, why does it matter
what one Christian blogger thinks about the merits of a TV show? Why should I base
my decision to watch a TV show on what someone else believes to be bad? I did
this for a long time. I was told that I couldn’t watch PG-13 movies until I was
13, so I didn’t. I was told that I shouldn’t watch R rated films ever, which I
abided by until I was 18 years old and discovered that R-rated movies are a
better quality film than any PG-13 or less. I learned, slowly, that you should
base your decision to watch something on how you react and feel to certain
content, not on how someone else, like a parent or a Christian blogger,
believes you should react and feel.
Walsh chooses to respond to the
question of whether Christians should watch Game of Thrones or not because of a
particular scene from a recently aired episode of GoT. The episode in question
involves one of the main characters, Sansa Stark, being raped by her new
husband on their wedding night. The show received a lot of flak for airing this
scene. First off, this is not the first rape scene that is depicted in the
film, nor is it the first just plain sex scene. But it is the first rape scene
that involves a character that the audience has grown to love. I contend that
this is the main reason why so many fans were outraged by this depiction. At
the time that this episode aired, I was one behind, so before I got around to
watching this episode, I was able to browse comments and articles that focused
on Sansa’s rape scene. I was hesitant to watch the scene because of the outrage
it caused amongst its fans, but the allure of the overall show itself pulled me
in. I was shocked by the scene; but not for the obvious reason, and definitely
not for the reason that Matt Walsh blogs about.
Walsh writes that this scene is
explicit. First, it should be noted that Walsh hasn’t watched more than the
first episode of this series, something that he admits to in his article, so
why he can call any scene in this series as explicit is beyond me. Anyway, as
far as rape scenes go, it’s relatively tame. You see Sansa’s husband rip open
the back of her dress and push her, face first onto the bed. It then cuts away
from a close up of Sansa’s tear streaked face to a close up of Reek’s face, who
is being forced to watch the wedding night by Sansa’s new husband. Through the
duration of the scene, which lasts maybe a minute, the camera stays on Reek’s
face. You hear a few cries from Sansa. That is it. There have been far more
explicit scenes depicting rape and sex in this show, most of which took place
in the first two episodes, than this particular scene.
So why are fans so outraged?
They’re outraged because, as I stated above, we love Sansa. We’ve invested 4.5 seasons
into watching her story evolve from a frightened and victimized girl to
(hopefully) a strong and independent woman. Dannaerys was more or less raped by
her husband (whom she was sold to) on her wedding night, but rather than play
the victim, Dany has turned into a strong female character. She took her
situation in hand and used it to raise herself above what she was originally intended
to be. I have the same hopes for Sansa.
Why was Dany’s scene less
controversial than Sansa’s? In my opinion it’s because we weren’t taught to
love her yet. If I’m being fair, I had an awful time watching that scene. Sex
scenes that portray the man as using a woman for sexual pleasure and domination
has never, and will never sit well with me. Sansa’s character is one that we
feel sorry for through 4 seasons. Dany’s misfortunes really end by the second
or third episode in the first season, when she takes control of the sex.
Sansa’s life has been one unfortunate occurrence after another.
There’s also the incest scene
between Cersei and Jamie that we should consider. Why aren’t people up in arms
over that scene, which was far more explicit than Sansa’s? It’s because we’re
not supposed to like Cersei. It’s that plain and simple. Stories are meant to
move us, and the ones that actually succeed in eliciting this kind of passion
from its fans is doing a fantastic job of reaching into the minds of the
audience and making them a part of their story.
But I’m straying from Walsh.
He argues that, “some of the most
talented writers and actors dedicate themselves to producing some of the worst
garbage. But the garbage is put together really well and sometimes has a
compelling story around it, so the temptation to watch is strong.” I fail to
see how a well put together TV show or film with a compelling story line
constitutes garbage. It’s counter intuitive to the definition of garbage.
Compelling stories are never 2 dimensional. They contain characters with flaws,
the most compelling of which tend to be moral “flaws”. They have a story line
that is not always linear, but deviates from what the intended goal seems to be
in order to create conflict for the main characters. The plot is not full of
holes and does not rely on faith to suspend disbelief.
Walsh says that after he and his
wife watched the first episode, they decided not to continue with the series
because they already knew what was going to happen: “lots of people would have
sex and die, and there would be blood and nudity and more sex, and then sex
followed by sex, which would occur right after a sex scene. In hindsight, it
appears we were entirely correct.”
After my first attempt to watch
GoT, I felt very similar to what Walsh and his wife decided the show would be
about. There is a lot of sex in the first episode, and it made me extremely
uncomfortable. I didn’t even make it through the first episode. I shut it off
and told myself that because sex was pervasive in the first episode, the entire
series would be the same. I was wrong in this assumption, but at that point in
my life, it was the right decision to make. I had yet to understand that
watching something that is uncomfortable does not lead to you mimicking the
behavior later.
A few months ago I tried it
again, and realized that there’s more to the sex scene’s than just sex. These
scenes shape the characters. They do not fall into the realm of “gratuitous sex
scenes”, meaning these scenes are not in the show for the sake of sex. They do
serve a purpose, but you do have to watch more than the first episode to
realize that. While sex remains a topic throughout the seasons, the depiction
of sex tapers off quite drastically once you get into the second season.
The show is more complex than
sex, nudity and blood. It’s about characters thrust into less than savory
situations who respond to these situations as real people might respond. These
horrors build their character and help inform their future actions both for
themselves, and against other people.
And what is this “hindsight”
garbage? Viewing one episode does not inform you as to what each subsequent
episode has been like.
Walsh does say something
moderately intelligent, but then gums it up when he brings a higher power into
it: “Art says something to us and about us. It drives us. Transforms us. Art
moves the heart and the mind in a particular direction. It can pull us closer
to Him or push us further away, but whatever it does, it does something.” Why oh why should a higher
power, namely “god”, be central to Art? What is central to art is the feeling
that it evokes in the viewer or listener. Not whether or not “god” is involved
in it. I am still moved by some of the LDS primary children songs that I
remember from childhood, but it’s not because they talk about god. It’s because
listening to tiny children sing is a sweet and precious experience. It’s
because I remember the voice of my mother as she sang me to sleep when I was
young, and remembering that that I knew she loved me because I could hear it in
her voice. I was practically moved to
tears when I stood beneath the Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel masterpiece, but
it wasn’t because of the overarching biblical theme. It was because I was
viewing, first hand, the work of a true master. I could feel the frustrations
he felt with dealing with the Vatican and the laborious work of painting on your
back. I appreciated the stories he was able to convey just in a single panel
painting. It’s amazing work. But I did not feel god.
Due to this one particular rape
scene, fans that are less than happy with the turn the show has taken are apparently
“swearing off” the show, and thus, according to Walsh, they are awakening from
a “moral slumber”. In their minds, they are doing the right thing for
themselves. They can no longer abide by a show that sexually harms a beloved
character. Fine. To each their own. But for Walsh to say that these fans are
finally coming out of their “moral slumber” is sanctimonious and objectionable because
it implies that he knows what is best for everyone on the planet.
Watching a sex/rape scene does
not mean that an individual is going to seek out a person to experiment on or
rape. It does not mean that they are automatically drawn to or even want to
view pornography. Watching a scene of incest does not mean that a viewer is
going to suddenly be prone to engaging in sexual activities with a sibling,
parent or other family member. Seeing does not equate to taking action. An
intelligent viewer understands that what they are viewing is pretend, but they
also understand that these stories that they are watching unfold have come to
life because of occurrences in real life throughout history. Reading, watching,
and listening to stories are wonderful ways in which to learn about the life
that surrounds you. Stories help you become more empathetic with people you may
come in contact with in everyday life. You realize that there’s more than meets
the eye. Stories help you learn about the human condition, whether they’re true
stories or not, because in all honesty, every story is rooted in reality,
whether it’s sci-fi/fantasy or historical fiction. On some level, the creator
is writing/drawing/singing/dancing what they know, whether it’s from first-hand
experience or not.
Walsh’s opinion on GoT is his to
have, but his moral compass should not dictate where my moral compass faces.
I’m not morally degraded because I watch the scenes. I don’t enjoy the scenes,
but I understand that they do in fact serve a higher purpose for the story
itself. In the beginning of his article, Walsh says that he’s not being
“holier-than-thou” in his critique of this show. (Can we really call it a
critique if he hasn’t watched more than an episode?) In my experience, however,
it’s always those who say, “I don’t mean to be rude but…” that inevitably end
up being rude. Saying you’re not being holier than thou and then telling people
that they were in a moral slumber because they (and not you) watched a show
with sex, nudity and blood in it, is as judgmental as you can get.
Especially when you bring the
Bible into it. “I’m [Walsh] saying that the Bible tells us to protect our
purity of heart and mind, and if those exhortations don’t apply to a show like
‘Game of Thrones’, when and where do they
apply?” Walsh conveniently forgets that the Bible depicts graphic scenes of
violence and bloodshed, rape and incest. And these scenes aren’t just a part of
the “bad guys” part of the story. People deemed to be “righteous” take part in
this throughout the span of the Bible. Look at Lot and his daughters. Incest.
And not to mention Lot was willing to let a horde of men rape his virgin
daughters rather than take advantage of two angels. Can the angels not take
care of themselves? If the Bible advocates for protecting the purity of our
hearts and minds, it’s telling us to do it at the expense of others. 
Walsh continues to spout his own
brand of garbage when he brings the reader’s back to the creators of such
“garbage” lacking intelligence to go deeper: “TV shows and movies offer a
relentlessly nihilistic view of the world because the people producing them
lack the intelligence to go deeper, say something profound, and make virtue
interesting. So they compensate by populating their scripts with sociopaths and
deviants, hoping we’ll confuse “grim and filthy” with “bold and smart”. The
only time we actually get a good guy on TV anymore is when he’s wearing a shiny
suit and has superpowers.” In my opinion, Walsh is not painting himself to be
very intelligent himself. “Good guys” in stories are very rarely all good. They
just can’t be because human beings fallible. It’s the bad situations and the
poor decisions that build a person’s character alongside of the good decisions
and good situations. This is why I detest characters like Captain America or
characters in a Jack Weyland novel. Everything is black and white and 2
dimensional. There’s no real character development, just an individual reacting
the way they would react whether they were 12 or 92. That’s not development.
That’s not character. That’s not an intelligent story.
TV shows and films like GoT are
not making a spectacle out of sex and violence. I believe it is safe to say
that they’re not advocates for rape and incest and that they’re not advocating
for a degenerate society. It’s not important to argue what the creators
intended by showing us violence, it’s what we do and how we react to the
material that is important, but it’s not the audiences job to determine what
the creators intended with their subject matter. What is important is how we
react to the material.
Christians should watch the show
if they find it enjoyable. Watching a rape scene does not make you less of a
person, nor does it make you an advocate for rapists. Learn what you like and
why you like it and make decisions based on your own moral compass. Not someone
else’s.
Comments
Post a Comment