Great piece by James Poniewozik in The New York Times on how “‘Game of Thrones’ Does Not Say What Donald Trump Thinks It Does.” A taste:
Mr. Trump is a fan of tough-guy imagery, and he, or whoever makes his memes, probably just liked the idea of depicting himself as the patriarch of House Trump — First of His Name, Protector of the Realm — going medieval on national security.
However, he might not like what “Game of Thrones” actually has to say about leadership in general, and walls in particular.
Certainly Mr. Trump could find role models on the show. It involves the rise to dominance of a cunning, wealthy family that doles out power positions to relatives and has a penchant for gold. (Although there is some question as to whether Mr. Trump, like the Lannisters, pays his debts.)
And yes, looming over the whole thing, there is — or was — a great, big, beautiful wall. But it was never intended to keep out people.
As with everything else Trump-ish, of course, those who hate Trump already know what an idiot he is, and those who love him won’t care. They won’t even listen to this. Trump and his fans are not tuned in to metaphor — even when it’s so blatant that it’s pretty much text, not subtext. That sort of thing is for experts and intellectuals, who are not to be trusted.
This is true of many pop-culture fans (judging by some of the comments I get here). They not only fail to see the forest for the trees, they deny the forest exists. As long as some meathead is making the trees blow up real good, that’s all they see and all they want to see.
Trump is absolutely, 100-percent emblematic of a culture that not only denies intellectualism, but denies things like context and reflection and self-awareness. People either don’t know how to think about anything, or they are afraid of doing so and hence unwilling.
Neither is a very comfortable, er, thought.
As ever, the song “Why We Build the Wall” from Anais Mitchell’s “Hadestown” is relevant. Although Trump and his supporters would entirely miss the irony of it and simply nod and agree, “yes, that’s why we build it!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wl5-v_vGVE
I don’t know, MaryAnn. As interesting as that quote was, I suspect one of my favorite scenes from the often maddeningly uneven cable series Weeds came up with a far better argument against Trump’s Wall Project over a decade ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en5kvLM_2Gw
If nothing else, the scene is a classic illustration of the old movie quote “Life finds a way.” :-)
But Trump is not invoking *Weeds* to make a misbegotten “point.”
True.
But that scene seemed a more humorous — and accurate — argument against the Wall than the Game of Thrones reference.
Besides there’s something about Martin’s ideas about walls — or at least that op-ed writer’s interpretation of them — that sounds like a bit off.
After all, the Berlin Wall was not built to keep people out. But few would argue that that was a good thing.
And a lot of the GoT wall descriptions that I’ve read online hint that it was meant to keep a certain people out.
Anyway, I’m obviously not a big fan of Trump nor am I a fan of his Wall Project. (Though my inner cynic can’t help thinking that if Mr. Trump lacks the political skills to secure financing for his Wall project, good luck to him when he tries to find the money for his U.S. Space Force idea. Then again that idea has Wag the Dog written all over it.)
…Tonio, I’m not sure if you’ve read the entire op-ed piece or if you’re just commenting on MAJ’s excerpt; or if you watch Game of Thrones; or if you’re clear on the whole context. The reason we’re discussing the GoT wall is because Trump is referencing the show to promote his own wall (he had a GoT-style poster displayed on a conference table, etc). He thinks the thesis of GoT supports his argument for a wall. People are pointing out that he’s clearly not familiar with GoT, because the show makes it very clear that the wall does NOT work — it doesn’t keep out the monsters that need to be kept out, and unjustly keeps out the people who need to be let in. Yes, the Weeds clip is funny and a good critique of the effectiveness of a wall; but since that’s not the show Trump is misinterpreting, that’s not the show being discussed.
The op-ed (if you read it in full) accurately describes how the reasons for defending the GoT wall change (and are perverted) over time. The politics of the Berlin Wall are not relevant here.
Point taken. I should have taken the time to read the whole thing. But you did an excellent summing up of the op-ed’s main points. Thank you for that.
You post a lot of comments that include the words “Point taken” or “Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.” It may be worth your while to research a topic before you write about it, rather than having to make a correction later. I’ve learned that lesson the hard way myself.
True.
For what it’s worth, I would like to commend you and Danielm80 and MaryAnn for speaking to me like a human being.
I don’t always see that on the Internet and that is one of the many reasons I choose to come here instead of other film sites.
I can’t promise I’ll always agree with you, Daniem80 or MaryAnn but I’ll at least try to listen. Bear in mind, I often disagree with my own siblings so it would be foolish to assume I’ll be more agreeable with people I only know from online sites. Then again when I disagree with one of you, it’s your opinions I’m disagreeing with, not you.
My own father has called me moody so I can’t pretend there are not to be times when I post something that deserves a “Come on, Tonio.” But I’ll try to do better than I have in the past.
Likewise, Tonio. As they say in The Princess Bride, “You seem a decent fellow.” (We’ll just ignore the lines that come after that.) :-)
I also don’t think we disagree as much as you think. It’s not like you’re a troll who celebrates misogyny or racism or fascism; we’re both operating from (I hope) a baseline of human decency. And you seem to want to hold liberals’ feet to the fire, not necessarily because you disagree, but because you want us to not be hypocrites and to face up to our shortcomings and actually live up to our principles. That’s not a bad thing.
I don’t generally disagree with your politics. We’re both pro-feminism, pro-immigration, and anti-Trump. I just think that, unlike some of the more ardent Trump supporters, we need to check our facts before we express our opinions, and make sure that our comments are actually relevant to the discussion we’re having. That’s why I sometimes get confused when you reply “Touché!” to someone who’s just trying to figure out why you’ve gone so wildly off-topic.
My way of conceding that you had a point which I should have been aware of.
Edited to add:
My last post was not inspired by anything you or Bluejay said. Nor anything said by MaryAnn. It was a response to something said by somebody else on another thread. I’m sorry if I implied otherwise. (I know. I’m beginning to sound like Dave Tennant now…)
I have to confess that I’ve been noticing a minor issue with your comments lately, Tonio, and it’s not about you disagreeing with me (or with anyone else). It’s that you often seem to be having a different conversation than the rest of us: that you’re “replying” to things that haven’t been said, and/or that you’re trying to drag a thread off on a tangent that isn’t really apropos.
Something to keep in mind.
Point taken. Sometimes I’m too contrarian for my own good.
*rubs eyes*
But… again, it’s not about you being contrarian, Tonio. Please reread MAJ’s comment.
I get that.